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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:04, 7 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

Glenn R. Simpson

Glenn R. Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However the Republican donor soon dropped out of what Simpson and Fusion GPS were doing. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for president picked up the deal with Fusion GPS and funded the remaining political assignation of Donald Trump before he was elected the 45th President of the United States"

There are so sources. This Fusion GPS ordeal is conspiratorial so keeping the pages as informative and perhaps unassuming seems important. Currently, the article does not source and does not seem to provide a verifiable, neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:6570:79dc:deea:ae1e:8a5e (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed. Codyorb (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'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

Kam Williams

Only functioning source is a Rotten Tomatoes profile that is equally likely to be fabricated. All other web sources do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippy.zippy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they do indeed seem to exist.--Auric talk 01:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They look to be consistently crappy, not reliable-third-party sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but still a long way from nonexistent.--Auric talk 22:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Landis

I reverted some recent pending changes to Max Landis but would like a second opinion from other editors. There were two versions:

The first I feel clearly did not meet the sourcing requirements for BLPCRIME [1]
The second is sourced to the Daily Beast [2]

My opinion was that the Daily Beast is not strong enough sourcing for these types of allegations. I checked and it is not currently being reported anywhere else. Should we wait add these allegations to the article with the Daily Beast source? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely throw concern of only coverage by the Beast. Even if included, it definitely should not be in the lede until it becomes more recognized by more reliable sources. --Masem (t) 21:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPs keep trying to add this, and I keep reverting as a BLP violation - if anyone thinks this can be added based on the Daily Beast source, then please comment.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are blogs and a twitter feed. Quoting directly from one of the sources: "it’s true that these are allegations on Twitter, many of them second-hand, and I haven’t seen any stories yet from a publication with fact-checkers and vetting."[3] Seems like a very good reason not to put this in an encyclopedia article. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George H.W. Bush

Accusations of inappropriate behavior have been flying in the #MeToo affair and resulted in a paragraph on the subject that is longer than the one describing his CIA career. I've made a (contested) BLP-call and reduced the section to a mention of the allegations (i.e. not detailing them), mostly since an old man telling dirty jokes isn't the crime of the century and GHW Bush no longer is a public figure by our definitions. I also think the paragraph gave WP:UNDUE weight to minor incidents. This was challenged. Can I have a few eyes on the article and perhaps (an)other opinion(s). Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske, although I agree with you that the previous version was too lengthy and too detailed, I think that you have swing the pendulum way too far in the opposite direction. A Bush spokesperson has acknowledged that the incidents took place. If you really believe that a long pattern of uninvited groping of the buttocks of various women, many of them strangers, accompanied by the same crude "cop a feel" joke, constitutes "minor incidents", then I wonder whether you are capable of neutral editing regarding sexual harassment. I consider all living former presidents to be public figures. By the way, at least one allegation of groping took place when Bush was president. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I do differentiate between things like rape (major incident) on the one hand and 'inappropriately touching' and telling corny jokes (minor incident) on the other. If you can't distinguish between those two, I'm afraid I must return the compliment about "editing neutrally". Nevertheless, I welcome your comments on the talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly touching various women's buttocks without permission is not "minor", Kleuske. It is sexual assault, and you initially characterized the behavior as "telling dirty jokes". What's up with that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: If it's "sexual assualt", as you claim, where's the police reports? Sexual assault is a felony, after all, and rightly so. This isn't. If I qualified every time someone touched my butt without consent as a 'major incident', I'd kill myself. And if you're under the illusion it's just the guys doing that, you're sorely mistaken. It's a relatively unisex behavior. Hence my qualification as a 'minor incident' and I stick with that. If only to give myself some room when discussing rape or actual sexual assault. Neutrality entails not over-dramatizing minor incidents, retaining some sense of proportion. Kleuske (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between touching and groping. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) How often have people "squeezed [your] butt, hard" (without consent). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... You're the expert, apparently. To answer that I'd need to know what force (how many Newtons) you require to satisfy the "squeezed [my] butt, hard" part before I can specify each and every incident to satisfy your curiosity. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that a search on "george bush" "heather lind" brings nearly no sources since mid-Nov (the accusation in October) tells me that this was seen as a non-story at this point, at least w.r.t. to Bush. (future articles on the #metoo movement do show him as an example of someone that wasn't knocked from a pedestal when the charges can to light, unlike say Spacey or Lewis CK). I think you can afford one or two more sentences, but one of those has to be Bush's acknowledgement and apology for it, and that's pretty much it. --Masem (t) 14:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it doesn't look like it affected his legacy or image or anything much, so can't have too much on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khan IV

Hello, I just noticed that the Aga Khan IV is referred to as the fourth "Imam and Turd" of his sect, and I'm not sure if "Turd" here signifies something other than its meaning in the English language, or if someone thought it would be funny to add that in the English meaning. Thought I should warn you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.236.200 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed "and Turd". Edwardx (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jedwabne pogrom article

This article currently alleges that a Polish politician named Anna Zalewska has denied the commonly accepted reality that Poles participated in the anti-Semitic Jedwabne pogrom during the Holocaust. It would be scandalous if accurate, and would rightly damage her reputation. But to assert she made the denial, the article uses a reference to the newspaper Haaretz, which alleges the denial in its commentary. The newspaper quotes some of her rather contorted and equivocating statements, none of which specifically makes the denial, but it is the newspaper which says these statements are a denial. Per WP:NEWSORG, Wikipedia policy doesn't support us treating commentary as reliable statement of fact. We can use the newspaper as a source for her statements, and we might even be able to say that the newspaper made the allegation that these are a denial, but Wikipedia cannot state the denial as fact. Moreover WP:SAID tells us to be shy of using the word 'deny' in the first place, and it converges here with WP:BLP's instructions for us to take particular care about what we say about living persons - especially in such volatile and litigious subject areas as the Holocaust. The Talk page discussion is live, please contribute and help us find a resolution. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is not an opinion piece or commentary - but news reporting by Haaretz which is generally considered a fairly solid RS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am using the term 'commentary' here to describe the newspaper's commentary within its news report; the report itself alleges the quote it has taken from a separate TV report is in fact a denial. According to its own policy Wikipedia is unable to make this statement of fact, just because Haaretz does. (We might be able to state specifically that Haaretz says it is fact, however.) This is the spirit of the policy and my rationale is unchanged. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other sources, express doubt or questions seems closer to what RS are saying, however there aren't many english sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in our Jedwabne pogrom article as tweaked by Icewhiz seems a not unreasonable reflection of what is in the Haaretz article. Edwardx (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I think the point is that Icewhiz is now referring to other sources in addition to Haaretz, to get a consensus of sources. It appears to me that Haaretz made a slightly sensationalized interpretation of comments by the living person, as other sources don't describe what she said as a 'denial'. That's why BLP, SAID, and NEWSORG override V here. We could replace Haaretz with one of the other sources or at least add the sources Icewhiz has gone and found. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think Haaretz's parsing of the original comments was reasonable, and it is a strong RS, however as other sources (all be it some of lower quality) parsed in a more qualified way than outright denial it was appropriate to modify the article (to "expressed doubt") per the balance in the sources as well as erring on the side of caution.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that Google Translate shows she has since clarified her stance: [4] That source is in Polish, it looks like English-language newspapers have cared less that she now says Poles share responsibility for the massacre. But nevertheless it seems in keeping with right of reply standards to add it now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory vandalism at James F. Amos

I've reverted several days' worth of vandalism--my concern is that the older stuff is defamatory, and may require rev/deletion. My disappointment is that this sort of stuff can get placed into the lede of a BLP and sit there for an indefinite length of time before being spotted. I'd prefer to report this at ANI, but that page is protected. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm sorry it took this long to sport your post, but the edits have now been hidden. - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Brophy

The stated place of birth (Fielding, NZ) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_Brophy is incorrect, the subject and multiple reasonable sources state the place of birth as Taihape, NZ. I have added a request to the Talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jed_Brophy to have this changed, or at least broadened to simply "New Zealand" if there is too much doubt. The help page suggested I could remove or correct errors of fact myself but given I'm a new account it seemed more appropriate to do the Talk comment and follow this process. Phirate (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now

Resolved

by an unregistered editor and the formatting -- an inline citation -- added by me. Yes it's fine to correct things like this yourself, whether new or not. If an article is so sensitive that new accounts shouldn't be changing it, then it won't let you edit it anyway. Often only temporarily. MPS1992 (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

Hi! As additional perspectives might help, over at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur) we're having a bit of a back-and-forth about the sourcing for a claim on David Wolfe. The original statement in the article was:

He advocates that people with cancer take dietary supplements instead of getting medical treatment, which he describes as "largely a fraud."

Two sources are used. The first, from Slate, only supports the first half, (that he advocates for complementary medicine as a means of fighting cancer), but doesn't say that he recommends people use dietary supplements instead of seeking medical treatment.

The second source is a self-published contributor article in Forbes. That one quotes the "Don’t cry Wolfe" Facebook page as the source for the claim that he "will dissuade your dying relative from seeking life saving cancer treatment". It also links to a meme posted by Wolfe on his Facebook page which quotes Linus Pauling saying "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them".

My reading is that the Forbes and Facebook posts are self published and therefore per WP:BLPSPS are not strong enough to support the contentious statement, and that the Pauling quote shows - at best - that Wolfe may be opposed to some (or most?) cancer research, but not that he advocates avoiding medical treatment for cancer. However, it is claimed that WP:PARITY allows for poorer quality sources in fringe topics, and therefore we can use the Forbes article as a source for the claim, even though it is self published.

Considering WP:PARITY, is the Forbes article sufficiently reliable for the claim? - Bilby (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is a misrepresentation and offered without sources and far from neutral.

A neutral and accurate posting here would be:

We are having a disagreement about content and sourcing at David Wolfe (entrepreneur), and both BLP and PSCI are relevant. The most recent content offered is:

He advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements,^[1] and according to Kavin Senapathy he advocates that people with cancer avoid medical treatment for cancer because it is “largely a fraud.”^[2]

References

^ Anderson, L.V. (June 28, 2015). "Everblasting Life". Slate. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
^ Senapathy, Kavin. "A New Year's Resolution For Science Advocates: Don't Cry Wolfe". Forbes. Retrieved 21 June 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Please comment. Thanks.

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "OP" (well, me) did provide sources in the above, and I also noted that I had only provided the original statement from the article. I guess I should also note in regard to the new wording discussed that a) Senapathy didn't actually say herself that Wolfe advocated "that people with cancer avoid medical treatment for cancer", but instead quoted a Facebook page that made the statement, and b) that Wolfe did not say that medical treatment was "largely a fraud", because that quote was not from Wolfe, and because it was in regard to cancer research, not treatment. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bashor

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

This is an obvious autobiography, and one of the books upon which it relies for the claim of notability is self-published, but is this subject notable? Guy (Help!) 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some red flags: The article lists "teaches at Ohio Dominican University yet their faculty directory does not include him. The most significant academic notice for his work is listed as receiving the "Adele Mellen Prize for Distinguished Scholarship", a prize apparently given by the Edwin Mellen Press, a publisher with certain credibility issues to one of its authors. I'm also unsure about the "2013 USA Best Book Awards"[5],[6]. Marie Antoinette's Head has, however, received enough coverage to be notable ([7], [8], [9], [10]) so the best course is probably to have an article about it and redirect the author's name to the book. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Jane Grace

The Laura Jane Grace bio page lists her deadname immediately after her legal name; this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntigonesAncestor (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AntigonesAncestor: Only if the subject became notable after the name change. This isn't the case here. See Chaz Bono for example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, she doesn't seem to mind her dead name being mentioned, given that she was famous prior to transition. She's even joked about reclaiming the name on Twitter (though I won't link to it, since it's possibly a BLPVIO itself). Woodroar (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question in passing she is in the Category:Lesbian musicians which doesnt appear to be mentioned in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She referred to her ex-wife and herself as a "lesbian couple". That should probably be in the article somewhere, but I don't know where. Woodroar (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Descalzi

The writer and translator Fabio Descalzi portrayed on the article happens to be me, User:Fadesga (although the article makes no direct mention to the fact of being a Wikipedist).

There happens to be a [list of Wikipedians with articles] - please consider if this article incurs in any conflicts of interest. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Flamingoflorida

Actually, the concerns are raised on the editor's talk page about members of their family and errors in the articles about them. The user is now blocked. If someone could look into the matters raised, perhaps we might resolve the issues that led to the socking. I had a hard time parsing the information there. Might be me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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,[11] 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]

Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal

Hi all, I've just removed a considerable amount of detail from Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal which named a number of individuals found to have sexually abused children in a Grand Jury investigation. I haven't revision deleted any of the content yet as I wanted to get more opinions on whether including that detail is acceptable and on the future of the draft. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some are confirmed dead like McCaa but the sourcing should still be improved regardless, there is no reason to cite to a Grand Jury report for anything other then what the Grand Jury report said. The section could be renamed "Grand Jury Investigation" instead of "Details of abuse", and revised to remove content about anyone who is not confirmed dead. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of content have been readded by the drafts author. And I agree any material involving any living person sourced only to court documents needs to go, and it needs to go now, with a strong warning from an administrator that re-adding them will have severe consequences. John from Idegon (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If alleged abusers have confessed to crimes against children during interviews conducted by the diocese and explained within the Grand Jury's report why do they need to go? Abuse has not only been committed but confirmed by the abusers.Cencoredme (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cencoredme:, please read this policy, particularly: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records...to support assertions about a living person.emphasis in original This absolute prohibition includes adding grand jury transcripts as sources. Note also that adding names sourced from such documents to Wikipedia articles may in some cases also violate the Terms of Use you agreed to follow when you created your account. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: If that is the case for a *living* person then so be it, the article has already been amended to reflect only those deceased and other details are from reliable articles such as the Guardian.Cencoredme (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cencoredme:, you asked why these needed to go and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the relevant policies. Thank you for saying you intend to comply with these. BLP's, particularly BLP about criminal allegations, are one area that we all need to be really, really strict about complying with the best sources. This protects both you and the project. Thanks again for understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardi B

A large portion of this articles uses self-published sources or sources that includes blogs, gossip sites, and social media— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.143.210 (talk) 09:26, January 4, 2018‎

It is not clear what you object to and this may be better discussed at the Cardi B talk page. That said, I see a lot of statements about Cardi B made by Cardi B on her social media accounts, which is accepted use within the Biographies of living persons policy: Never use self-published sources...unless written or published by the subject of the article.emphasis in original Sourcing statements in the article such as "She went on to attend Renaissance High School For Musical Theater & Technology..." to her Instagram account, for example, fits all the requirements of using self--published sources in BLP's. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 Night in Paris dvd cover

The article 1 Night in Paris, is about a pornographic video of Paris Hilton released without her consent. The article contains a photo of the dvd cover, which contains images from the pornographic video. I nominated the photo for deletion ages ago, but the file was kept, and I then proceeded to forget all about it. Rather than re-nom for deletion, and be accused of beating a dead horse or ignoring consensus, I thought I'd bring the issue here. Taking into account BLP policies, is it appropriate to have such a photo on Wikipedia. Also while this isn't a topic I know too much about, would the presence of such a file be contrary to revenge porn laws recently introduced in various US states?Brustopher (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Ingrid Hoffmann Wiki

I manage celebrity chef Ingrid Hoffmann. I have attempted to make changes to her bio a few times since some current info is wrong and I would also like to add the latest information. My changes keep getting reverted. How can I make changes to reflect her original bio? Dleon1077 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have a conflict of interest regarding the article subject, I would strongly advise that you read and follow the advice given in our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. --Chris (talk) 19:33, 4 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]

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]

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]

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."[12] 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 here 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]

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]

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]

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 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 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]

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]

[Slate:_NutriBullet-1] Anderson, L.V. (June 28, 2015). "Everblasting Life". Slate. Retrieved May 20, 2016.

[2] Senapathy, Kavin. "A New Year's Resolution For Science Advocates: Don't Cry Wolfe". Forbes. Retrieved 21 June 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 321: / Line 321: @@
 :::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. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 23:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 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, "[[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_don't_like_it|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. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
-:What does it add to this article to note that a bigoted loudmouth lout 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. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
+:What does it add to this article to note that a 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. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::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 "[[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_don't_like_it|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. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 00:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::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. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 00:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 :::It may simply be my own ignorance, but why should we accord Mr. Yiannopoulos' opinion any greater weight or notability than other commentators?  Thanks. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 00:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::::{{ping|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. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 00:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
-:::::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 vulgar, misogynistic ad-hominem rantings. If your only argument for inclusion is "it exists," we are not obligated to include it merely because it exists. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 00:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
+:::::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 rantings. If your only argument for inclusion is "it exists," we are not obligated to include it merely because it exists. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 00:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::::::"''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. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 00:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 :::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 [[WP:BURDEN|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. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 00:20, 7 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