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

Contaldo80 has repeatedly inserted this edit at Gay bishops which identifies the sexual orientation of a living person, but it is not a self-identification. My understanding is that this is a clear violation of WP:BLP regarding identification of sexual orientation. I would appreciate any assistance. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editors, volunteers, and friends:

I've attempted to correct many of the factual and timeline errors in the Radio Birdman bio page, and also added material to bring the page reasonably up to date (the last info was about ten years old). I also corrected some of the gaps in the discography, while attempting to remove the entries regarding illegal pirate and bootleg recordings (of which more than 40 exist at my last count). My revisions were rejected by the robot editor. Can anyone help me to fix this page up? I am a founding member of the band, and was there as an eyewitness to all of it.

My revisions can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio+Birdman&diff=743587325&oldid=740819894

Best regards, Deniz Tek

Deniztek (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the bot's reversion of your edit, which was not done as some sort of principled rejection of your efforts, but probably because a word or two you added were things that show up in actual vandalism, which your edit clearly was not. I've let the bot's runners know that it was a false positive.

I'm glad you're helping straighten out the historical record here. Having said that, if you want to make any further changes to that page, I suggest that you post the suggested changes to the article's Talk page (at Talk:Radio Birdman) and let some other editor make the change. That's the way we recommend people deal with conflicts of interest, and while I'm sure you're intent is merely accuracy, I'm sure you can understand that we get people involved in all sorts of organizations (companies, charities, and yes, bands) who want to spin the truth a bit.

Thanks for taking part in Wikipedia! --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nat. Your help is much appreciated. I'll follow your advice regarding the proper method of dealing with errors in the future. Deniztek (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Deniz

A number of cats have been added to the article over time claiming the subject is gay. I can't find any corroboration for the claim in the article, nor can I read German sources. Assistance appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Already removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim Gallagher (civil servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2016/10/the-anti-independence-professor-who-isnt-quite-what-he-seems/

As per the article above, this wikipedia entry is misleading, to the point it is false.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.137 (talk • contribs)

Article has been effectively stubbed - it was poorly cited and promotional before, but personally I'm not 100% sure that all of the removals were totally necessary. His affiliation with different educational institutions can be reasonably well sourced to RS, for example, so I'm not sure why we're taking the word of an obviously partisan WordPress blog that those sources are incorrect, absent a real RS that says otherwise. But at least the content that remains can be verified and the maintenance tag removed. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

SUMMARY: BLP issue relates to insertion by some editors and removal of BLP-violating material by me and multiple others. I'm objecting to reverts of those 3 diffs.

DETAILS:

1. Bdell555, Somedifferentstuff and My very best wishes (in reverting me, User:Thymefromti, User:Francewhoa, etc.) keep restoring a libelous claim. They should be told to neither restore info that fails verification, nor remove valid ((fv)) tags. Plain policy violations. The Focus article cited does not confirm the info, and neither did the previous source. The claim is that French and British gov't intelligence concluded that WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian government intelligence agents aiming to discredit NATO governments, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive details about what WikiLeaks publishes before publication. These extraordinary and very serious allegations have been repeatedly added to the article with out adequate sourcing. Please let me know if I am mistaken that this info is not adequately sourced, and should be removed per policy. There are two other BLP-related issues with edits to the page:
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So anonymous smears of Wikileaks vaguely attributed to "the US government" claiming a proven Russian government connection to various leaks, only SOME of which even involved WikiLeaks at all (others were posted on other websites - like DCleaks) are not appropriate on Wikipedia! Please let me know if I'm mistaken on this, and explain why, citing policy. (The Administration has spoken on this topic on the record, so RS should be available as to what the US' official position is. It is, and the position is not that WikiLeaks has been definitively tied to any leaks definitively tied to the Russian government. Even these claims face strong criticism)
3. It's well known that "Anonymous published secret plans presented by Palantir Technologies to US intelligence to attempt to discredit WikiLeaks by “[spreading] disinformation” and “disrupting” support for WikiLeaks" and I added this to the article, but it's been removed. The claim is both not RS-backed and OR, I'm told, in edit summaries. Well, it's neither. And it's disingenuous to argue it's both - a single assertion can't be both sourced to a news article AND OR. It can be one or the other or neither, but it can't be both. To make both claims suggests a conduct issue - someone is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.

For those wanting an English translation of the latest source that failed verification: [1] Take a look at the edit summaries to see what I and others have said.

--Elvey^(t•c) 02:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Assange and Putin aren't people? :-)--Elvey^(t•c) 09:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bdell555, My very best wishes, Somedifferentstuff, Thymefromti, and all contributors :) For all notable views, I suggest to try to target for an equal amount of space per notable view. How does that sound? I agree with Elvey to restore that item about the claimed attempt of Palantir Technologies to discredit WikiLeaks. Because that item balance the views, and it was reported by notable sources. Such as:

• http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/business/unlocking-secrets-if-not-its-own-value.html
• http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS121866071120110217
• https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/15/anonymous-us-security-firms-wikileaks
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palantir-apologizes-for-wikileaks-attack-proposal-cuts-ties-with-hbgary/
• http://www.salon.com/2011/02/11/campaigns_4/
• http://www.salon.com/2011/02/14/palantir_wikileaks/
• http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-2011-2?op=1
• http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2011-2?op=1
• http://www.inc.com/business-insider/employees-working-at-palantir-silicon-valley-secretive-startup.html

I'll try to add some of those notable sources to that item.

Of course each contributor have their own opinion. I personally believe that diversity is a strength. To each their own opinion. While at the same time, as you know Wikipedia is a encyclopedia of notable items contributed by volunteers. Not to confuse with a corporate mass media or a private blog.

For all notable views, I suggest to try to target for an equal amount of space per notable view. I mean roughly the same amount of words per notable view. How does that sound?

With infinite Wikipedia-Love ♥

Francewhoa (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Francewhoa, it is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH to use sources that have nothing to do with Russia as evidence of a smear campaign involving Russia (I can't think of a clearer example of synthesis). I fixed the article but please don't do that again. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Beautifully expressed. Great research. I remind Somedifferentstuff and others that NPOV is a pillar. Arguing that we cannot respect NPOV because SYNTH shows no understanding of our policies. When accusations are made that skirt BLP, everything accusatory of a living person needs to be meticulously sourced. Saddened by the caliber and tone of some of the other recent edits. --Elvey^(t•c) 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Somedifferentstuff :) Thanks for your reply and your Wikipedia contributions, as well as expressing your concern. Maybe my last comment was not clear. I was suggesting an equal amount of space per notable view. This could take various forms. Notice that the section title included both views "Allegations of smear campaign and Russian influence". How about re-balancing views by adding a new section titled "Allegations of smear campaign against WikiLeaks" section? And no change to the "Allegations of Russian influence" section. How about roughly the same amount of words per notable view section? I have updated the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francewhoa (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:SYNTH, this edit is arguably as SYNTH as it gets. An editor (Elvey) encounters a dead link and then infers from that, incorrectly as it turned out, that the article no longer exists on the magazine website and that in turn means that the magazine retracted the article or... something. In any case, the first order of business is to determine whether Wikileaks is a living person. Or is the contention that it's Putin who is being harmed here, in this case by Wikipedia noting reports that Wikileaks is effectively pro-Putin?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS is what matters for that particular issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel personally attacked when you accuse me of SYNTH. It's as fair to say what's SYNTH is not my claim, but rather, your wild conjectures sprouting from a hastily reached conclusion that my claim that the article was not on the website less than a month later are SYNTH. Let me demonstrate this by pointing out that not only did the link go dead, as the URL I provided proved, but Focus then created a new version of the article, with major factual changes - it's not the old article yet there's no indication that the revisions have been made- it's all surreptitious. Focus' behavior is very reminiscent of Winston Smith's work in 1984's Minitrue. Legit news journalists/sources don't surreptitiously edit articles post-publication. (I challenge you to prove that the original article exists at a new URL on the website, that the changes are properly disclosed, that the take-down of the original article is explained.) You appear to be capable of figuring out who is being harmed here, WP:CIR is what matters for that particular issue; continue to review the headline of this thread; so far so good. --Elvey^(t•c) 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• None of these edits represents a BLP violation by any stretch of imagination. Please do not be engaged in forum shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There has been a long-term attempt to associate Angana P. Chatterji with a controversial figure-- possibly toward guilt by association or coatracking? I don't want an undo-see-saw. A more veteran opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igarashi.torren (talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it again. The first source cited just mentions that she attended the conference Fai ran - hardly proof of being "associated with" someone - and the second source doesn't mention her at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this reintroduction of BLP-violating content that I had removed with the comment rm BLP violation. Poorly sourced quote - I dispute the quote is about Stein, as she isn't anti-vaccine, and quote is about people who are. Attempt to add context:Special:Diff/745207707 reverted is sanctionable. The article is under DS : ((2016 US Election AE)) so I am hesitant to re-remove even content that I think is BLP-violating. Some editors keep trying to impute that Stein is anti HVAC come. She is anything but.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and will be starting an AE thread before the end of the week if no one else does. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the situation is in fact like someone saying I'm not a racist but I understand why so many people are racist since they have a good reason to be and the way to reduce racism is to address that legitimate concerns that racists have about other races. Take a step back here and ask yourself whose side someone who spoke like that is effectively on. Would you let that person off the hook because he said I'm not a racist? Stein says she agrees with the anti-vaxxers that the FDA etc have been corrupted by corporate interests and that's effectively vindicating the anti-vaxxers not undermining them.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that is low. --Elvey^(t•c) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a quote attributed to a noted authority in a relevant area, published in a reliable source, and it directly addresses a well-documented critique of Stein. This is a classic case of WP:CRYBLP. The text does not violate our policy in any way, and whitewashing criticism of Stein's anti-vaccine apologia would be a gross failure of WP:NPOV. Given her training it is remarkable and clearly quite notable that she has given support to anti-vaxers, 9/11 Truthers and the like. I believe Stein when she says she is not anti-vaccine herself, but that is irrelevant because a lot of people interpreted her shameless pandering to antivaxers as being just that. This is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Such comments are seen as a the result of a media smear campaign against Jill Stein by RT-America, which pointed out in August 2016 that her "comments about vaccinations and genetically-modified organisms" are "often-misrepresented" and that "Stein, like many people, has concerns about the effects of GMOs and pesticides, whereas Clinton surrounds herself with 'Big Ag' and 'Big Pharma' insiders since her time as first lady." https://www.rt.com/usa/355444-debunking-jill-stein-smears/ According to CounterPunch, John Stauber exposed that this media smear campaign was orchestrated by "paid Democrat progressives" - "shills" including Robert Naiman. CounterPunch provided evidence from Kevin Zeese and quoted him saying that there "was a coordinated campaign" - "It was a planned slander attack.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/

I'm sure I won't change Guy's mind (any more than I could mak an anti-vaxxer's mind sane, LOL) but please become aware that there was a nefarious, documented, coordinated media campaign to paint Stein as pandering to anti-vaxxers. See http://www.inquisitr.com/3444426/jill-stein-is-not-anti-science ! Not that the article is 100% on the money, but the claims backed with documentary evidence are particularly eye-opening and serious. Clearly the campaign has been quite succssful. :-( --Elvey^(t•c) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you do us a favour here Elvey and put a period after "smear against Jill Stein" and delete the "by" in "by RT-America"? Because it otherwise takes some time for readers to figure out that you see RT as one of the good guys in the media world instead of the principal villain.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of racist analogies....
Do our Trump articles say in Wikipedia's voice that Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.? After all, it's true and at the bottom of every HuffPo article on him. I haven't looked, but I bet they don't. --Elvey^(t•c) 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So you'd like visitors to the BLP noticeboard to look into "say[ing] in Wikipedia's voice that [a living person]... is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist" not because you are concerned that Wikipedia is saying that now but because you are concerned that Wikipedia is not saying that? That's certainly an unusual BLPN complaint. I'm not sure how the topic of Trump is germane here, with the connection to Stein being largely limited to them both having the support of Kremlin-controlled media like RT. In any case, if you think we should use more HuffPo, should we use this: "Jill Stein’s Dangerous Anti-Science Campaign"?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone has twice posted a lie about Brent Budowsky. I've removed the offending paragraph, with some associated reference links, twice.

I believe Brent is in contact with you about this issue, but I wanted to report it here, as well.

Let me know if you need to see the text I removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolynMKay (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Klaper This reads like an advertisement. It also fails to mention his disciplinary history with the Maryland Medical board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B019:ACBF:0:5E:B0F5:1101 (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on a quick perusal of the current content and references of the Michael Klaper article I suppose this article should be taken to WP:AfD, that is: if it falls in no CSD category. Alternatively Michael Klaper could be turned into a redirect to an article like EarthSave (if it weren't so that that page is also already a redirect). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead, redirected the article to Diet for a New America ([2]), and removed from the navbox ([3]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted the blanking of the page. Klapper is quite notable in his field. Please attempt to erase through another route, but just removing the page seems too soon. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am a representative of Mr Badr Jafar. I would like to report a WP:Biography of living persons violation on Badr Jafar and I hope to bring the page to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. The text in question is the claim that Badr Jafar is Shia as purported by User:Mawlidman in edits such as this one: [4]. To clarify that the information is false, Mr Jafar has logged a ticket number with Wikipedia (Ticket number# 2016050310022619) citing the facts and requesting that this misleading information be removed. The ticket was actioned by User:Mdann52 with this edit: here. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide Mawlidman with a link to the ticket as it is a closed system with restricted access. I have asked him to contact the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team to verify the authenticity of the ticket. Also please note that I have not been involved in any way with the recent edit wars on the page. Can I please have an administrator look into the matter for me? OoBJ (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Mdann52 is an OTRS volunteer who removed (28 May 2016) the text.

Mawlidman is a new account created on 1 April 2016 and the history of the article appears to show that their focus of interest is to ensure that the text is restored.

The text "He is of Iraqi Shia background" is claimed to be supported with two references. However, the quotes supplied from each reference do not support the specific claim about the subject of the article. The text should be removed on that basis alone. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, my edit doesn't say he is shia: it clearly says he is of iraqi shia background, and the references clearly show this. There is nothing controversial about this, just as mentioning that some American is of Punjabi Sikh background. Secondly, the edit was acceptable to these editors in a previous RfC discussion. Also, OoBJ the fact that you admit to being a "representative of Mr Badr Jafar" already reveals you have an ulterior motive of whitewashing facts that perhaps don't want to be revealed by your client. Mawlidman (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The edit in question (diff) adds the claim "He is of Iraqi Shia background" with two references. There are two major problems.

• First, no reliable source has explained the significance of whether this person has such a background. Such meaningless factoids are often added to articles either to claim someone as belonging to a favored group, or to taint them as part of an unfavored group—it is not up to an editor (WP:OR) to decide that this description is useful. Find a source which describes the subject in that manner.
• The second and insurmountable problem is that the sources do not mention the subject of this article in connection with the claim. The first source does not mention him at all, while the second mentions him only regarding his work for Crescent Petroleum. Someone with an opinion about what the sources say might think the added text is reasonable, but it is original research to state a conclusion about the subject of a BLP when the source merely described his father.

The text will be removed in due course. Editors who make a habit of warring over mentions of ethnicity/religion in articles are routinely removed from Wikipedia, although we have to waste a lot of time first. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Due course being about 3 minutes ago when I (edit- Nomo got there first I see) did it. I also found the sources problematic, however there is a an issue between Shia religion/ethnicity much like the problem with Jewishness. From an admittedly brief bit of checking, it appears his family do have a Shia background. But nothing I would source in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The sources used clearly quote "The Jafar family is part of a network of cosmopolitan Shiite families" and "Both men [Ayad Allawi and Badr's father] are secular Shiite Muslims". These sources are pretty self-explanatory to people with an ounce of comprehension — to call the edit OR is ridiculous — and were acceptable to the RfC editors involved, yet you have breezily dismissed them. Mawlidman (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I underlined the key words above. Here they are in bold: the sources do not mention the subject of this article in connection with the claim. That is what it makes the claim OR. People try to add claims like that for the reasons I mentioned all the time. They are routinely removed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: the sources do not mention the subject of this article in connection with the claim. Umm...Yes they do. But i will re-word the sentence to help people who have trouble connecting big, clear dots. Mawlidman (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Any attempt to add an analysis of by an editor will be reverted. Unless you are willing to identify an earlier account, you need to work within the confines of someone who has been active at Wikipedia for six months and who has a total of 270 edits. Experienced editors know that the WP:BLP and WP:OR issues identified above are very real. Please engage with the points raised—ask for clarification if something does not make sense. There is no need to ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Do not be a spiteful sod. I re-edited the section to include his prominent family and even included the wikilink to his uncle, who is prominent enough to have his own article. I can rattle off countless articles about a person that in the same article mention their prominent family/relatives. Don't abuse your power or i will report you. Mawlidman (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Shiite bit will have to stay out of the article. It doesn't matter that there is a source that says the "family" is Shiite. Someone connected with Jafar has done exactly what they're meant to do in a situation like this -- make contact via OTRS indicating a preference that the information not be included. One can come from a Shiite family and not embrace a Shiite identity oneself -- in which case we would respect the preference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please show me the link to the OTRS. I have yet to see it. Mawlidman (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You will never see it, it's confidential - that's kind of the point of OTRS. This has all explained above - please listen to what others are saying and stop trying to change it. The changes you seek are not going to happen, period. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• And I hope User:Mawlidman stops reinserting that information, lest they be blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for your kind and concerned two cents' worth. Mawlidman (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mawlidman, you're very welcome. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This whole article reads like some sort of commercial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.160.94 (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Ouch. I was going to say that "five-time New York Times & Wall Street Journal Best Seller" sounds as if WP:N is ok, but the reference is a dead link. The last para is about a "Cease and Desist Order" and was added by a single-edit IP on 25 January 2016. Are the fluff points mentioned enough to avoid WP:AfD? Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect she probably does pass GNG. However the article as currently written and sourced does not. You could AFD it in the hope it might provoke someone to improve it? If no one can be bother, it will be deleted. No real loss in either situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Depuffed (the amount of self-promotion therein was enormous) and commented out her legal case which has only a primary source. Collect (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a personal page created by this individual not a public figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ade_Olufeko — Preceding unsigned comment added by A chercheur dor (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not need to be a public figure to have a page. What you need is notability and coverage in reliable sources, which it appears Olufeko does not meet either. Meatsgains (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure that she went to St. Edmund's College Cambridge? Being 19 it seems odd that they said she went to 'School' there, is it not possible she went to some sort of school in the area? Possibly the St. Edmund's College in Hertfordshire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.240.157 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

According to The Sun she did. Meatsgains (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Olavi Hangula

Hi , as Olavi Hangula's manager. I am well aware of his sexual status. He is a happy heterosexual gentleman, however, recent editors and bullies have been attempting to tarnish my client's image by posting derogatory terms and accusing him of being a homosexual gentleman.

I am asking that you make my account [username redacted]] the only author and contributor to this article, that way it is protected from bullies who are hard at work to tarnish my client's image. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.77.34 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a bad-faith report by the same IP vandal who has been inserting serious BLP violations all over the article, acting as an imposter. Blocking and semiprotecting.Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at Markus Gabriel, specifically in the Controversy section of the entry? I raised this a few days ago and it looks like it was archived before being addressed. There are allegations from a colleague of Gabriel's that haven't been covered by any independent reliable source; they need to be removed, but I was unsuccessful when discussing this with the editor who added them. The same issue was basically the subject of a previous BLPN thread here a few months ago. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that unless there's a reliable secondary source, the claim shouldn't be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the 18 October 2016 "controversy" is very inappropriate and must be removed. Wikipedia is not available for blog-like opinions on any topic, let alone living people. The issue can be reconsidered when secondary sources have written about the findings of an independent inquiry. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The section has been removed, and the article has been semiprotected (by another admin). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to draw community attention and eyes to a number of articles about or relating to living people connected to or mentioned in the Wikileaks dumps of John Podesta's e-mail account. These include John Podesta, Podesta emails, Donna Brazile, Jamil Smith (writer), Philip Munger, Glenn Thrush, etc. There have been numerous efforts to insert material relating to those e-mail leaks into these and other related articles. While some discussion and mention of the e-mails is likely warranted in many of these articles, the efforts have generally come with a significant partisan slant, are often written tendentiously and in a highly-negative fashion, and in many cases are based upon unreliable, notably-biased or otherwise questionable and unacceptable sources (ZeroHedge, Russia Today, Breitbart, etc.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Brent Budowsky too (see the discussion above). Definitely a problem, the edits are pretty partisan and poorly sourced. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a RS for us questioning the reliability of the material, NorthBySouth? Because I recall you demanding such of me as a condition for reining in the amount of space over at Edward Snowden given over to Snowden's attacks on various US officials. Speaking of which, I also recall you declaring over there that "The actions of Snowden" had exposed James Clapper as a liar hence Snowden was a whistleblower yet here we are again with leaked material, quite possibly being supplied by a Kremlin-connected person, but this time it exposes Democratic Party-connected persons and you're NOW convinced that the material is both highly partisan and quite possibly forged. And it couldn't have been in Snowden's case? The material at issue here with people like Budowsky is in fact a lot milder than calling someone a liar. The difference that jumps out at me is that the Russian propaganda machine has, for once, switched its attack from American security institutions in general to the Democratic Party and NOW we're suddenly so very conscious about whether we are enabling the Kremlin's public opinion agenda. There aren't any "whistleblowers" this time around, NorthBySouth? If you're going to suppress this material, then it ought to be done consistently. Donna Brazile and James Clapper are both living persons.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place to talk about Snowden or dredge up old, irrelevant disputes. The only thing that matters is whether the current leaks are well sourced enough to be verifiable and WP:DUE. So please, let's not go down that road. And please assume good faith. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, but if I ever suggested that material sourced to Russia Today was a valid reliable source, please whack me with a wet trout and accept my apologies, because that was wrong then and it's wrong now. (Edit: Having reviewed the three-year-old dispute in question, I didn't, so no trout is necessary.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about why these leaks aren't being better received given your professed enthusiasm for whistleblowing. Or is one person's whistleblower another person's "tendentious partisan"? Budowsky's bio has been wiped clean and your contribution to that had an edit summary indicating that you disputed that he was ever a "strategist" for the Clinton campaign. Why was he able to email his advice directly to the chair of the Clinton campaign? The Hill uses the term "Democratic strategist" and the Washington Post uses the related term "political advisor" (before quoting a Budowsky email to Podesta).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Like I said elsewhere, leaks like these are WP:PRIMARY sources at best. In order to say anything nontrivial using them, especially in a BLP, we need a secondary source (one that passes WP:RS, ie. not a blog or the like) to both provide interpretation and to establish due weight. Absent a secondary source, pulling a sentence from a massive data dump of someone's personal emails and using it to try and imply something about them is straightforward original research. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a claim that this article has a neutrality issue because of the creation of this list of sources, which was used to examine the sources used in the article when there was a claim of POV and reliable source issues. The input came from review of RSN archives and discussion on the talk page. The discussion about the claim and identification of reliable sources is in this archived discussion. Politico and Huffington Post sources were replaced with sources less likely to be biased. Independent and a tabloid source, I think Jezebel, were replaced with better sources. In all four cases, the content was not removed, but was modified based on the content of the mainstream press source.

The key issues seem to be Guardian, which has been discussed to be a reliable, but second-tier source. There is some content that has not been added where Guardian is a source, primarily because it is a claim that Trump raped a 13 year old girl, but only 16% of a universe of mainstream press has reported on it. The universe and discussion are found at The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?. The other issues are that Daily Beast and Jezebel haven't been considered reliable sources. As far as I can tell, there only time that content from those sources has been deleted is if there is no mainstream reporting. Otherwise, the sources are improved and the content modified based upon mainstream reporting.

Questions:

• Do you see any neutrality issues with this list of sources and the approach mentioned above?
• I have been told at RSN (in this posting) that it shouldn't be used to research "some nebulous universal concept of 'reliability'" and that this is the place to discuss this matter. What is the best way to assess reliability of sources for a sensitive topic such as this?

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Like many others I have noticed the fuss surrounding the current election and have avoided it and so do not know what is being advocated in this report. However, Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/List of sources is not useful and it should be deleted. There can be no rule that a certain media outlet is "reliable" for all commentary, and there should be no suggestion that Wikipedia should parrot any factoid found in an approved source. In particular, if a well known individual has been accused of a significant crime such as child rape, articles should not include that accusation until major developments have occurred—preferably the findings of a court after due legal process, or at least the plausible start of court proceedings. Acting as an echo chamber for media frenzy is not part of Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok will do.

So, I'm stuck. RSN is where I've always gone, and they sent me here. How can we determine what sources are reliable sources?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing at WP:RSN shows an edit notice which mentions that an RSN report could contain source + article + content. Also, the reply you received at RSN gave an excellent summary of the situation. In conclusion, it is not possible to determine what sources are reliable sources—there is no such thing. Instead, a source may be reliable for asserting a particular fact in a particular context. In general, a generic question will rarely receive a satisfactory answer at any noticeboard. If the issue concerns claims of a 13 year old being raped, you need to spell that out in simple language. When I last glanced, I did not see mention of the rape claim (good). If your intention is to ask whether the claim should be added, the answer is no. If your intention is to ask how to prevent others from re-adding the claim, unfortunately that cannot be done with the anarchic model of Wikipedia where we assume even belligerent advocates attempting to influence the outcome of an election are editing in good faith. Sorry, you would have to wait until it is re-added then ask here whether the sources used justify the particular text in the article, and whether WP:WELLKNOWN justifies inclusion of the claim. If the claim is in an article somewhere, please link to it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• To address the issue of Trump and sexual allegations: Trump easily passes the WP:WELLKNOWN part of BLP for the purposes of these allegations due to his political campaign tactics of attacking Clinton's (Bill) sexual misconduct. It makes allegations against him relevant in the political context. All that needs to be fulfilled is the 'are there multiple reliable third-party sources'. Had he not made sexual misconduct an issue, his own history would be less likely to be relevant. Some of the claims are obviously more substantial than others. Due weight should be considered in which to include. The underage rape claim is as yet, not covered in detail, or where it is covered, it is in the context of a spurios complaint - so it should not be included. The rest? Plenty of RS sources out there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have other concerns, but I think two points should be at the forefront here that aren't being considered: WP:NOT#NEWS (and to that end, There is no deadline) and WP:RECENTISM.

In a month or two from now, presuming the polls go the way they currently project, this topic that is being the focus of far too much energy on WP is going to quietly disappear, or at least now be viewed in a light outside of a political candidate. Reporting will become more sane and less sensationalist, which we would be in a better place to review the sources then and have a better picture. There is zero rush for us to be as up to the minute with information and potentially mis-information about a high-profile BLP that currently is under the world's largest spotlight. We should be evaluating the situation without that spotlight. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and Only in death:,

Regarding reliable sources, I have been able to process your complimentary answers. It would be a huge help if you could look at this in terms of an approach - from the perspective of a BLP in an exceptional circumstance and see if this makes sense. Your first response may be "duh" but if you can hang in with me, it would be really helpful to get your input:

It's not appropriate to have a list

• The page has been blanked and a speedy delete tag applied

Reference policies, such as

• Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Good_references - There is a lovely short blurb that says use "reliable sources, such as published books and mainstream press publications."
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources,
• there's lots of other good ones with links in the above documents

Because this is an unusual situation of a well known individual

• ensure there are multiple reliable third-party sources, per Only in death
• WP:NOT#NEWS, with There is no deadline
• WP:RECENTISM
• WP:EXCEPTIONAL
• WP:BALASP
• WP:Neutral point of view, especially key
• Is there anything else?

When there are specific issues, content and sources - bring them to RSN or BLPN.

I'm still not sure how to have handled the claims of POV and reliable sources differently. The content that was in the article at that time did have numerous sources, so it was easy to find good reliable sources as replacements. I've not heard one person mention that finding better mainstream sources that were less likely to be biased was wrong.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm guessing you were able to see what I was typing from all my "previews". Thanks, Masem, I made your additions to the list.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am getting that it is not Wikipedia's role to report this until there are major developments - and that you both agree it shouldn't be in the article based on current reporting. But, people may come along and attempt to add content, which can be a difficult process to manage. There is an open RfC and it would be great to get your opinions - or anyone from the BLP project, whatever their opinion may be, about this. The link is RfC: Jane Doe content. There are four options for whether to keep the content in the article or not. Do you mind adding your input on whether or not the content should be in the article?

Regarding, "this should not be covered until there are major developments, like a legal case, etc. - Would the applicable policy(ies) for that include WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BALASP. Anything else?

Thanks so much for bearing with me. Your help is greatly appreciated. It just took me awhile to get where I needed to be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

This article about Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court is highly tendentious and laced with liberal opinion, neither relevant to Chief Justice Moore's biography nor helpful for objective people seeking straight information. All opinion and tendentious statements require to be edited out or the article removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.203.148 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a big article, but aside from some sections that need better sourcing, nothing immediately jumps out as a BLP issue - can you be more specific about where you see problems? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Marty Meehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A history of promotional and conflict of interest edits, the most recent coming from UMasswebteam (talk · contribs), which I've reported for username. I've removed a few overtly promotional phrases, but believe this could use further oversight. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Update: Umasswebteam has change username to Ragrella (talk · contribs). 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I’ve noticed that the Wikipedia page for Troy Southgate has recently undergone some drastic changes, to make a once informative and unbiased article into something resembling a smear campaign.

If you look at the archived page from 22:52 on the 5th of October, it tells a very different story to the new page.

Old: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troy_Southgate&oldid=742809238 New: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Southgate

The existing page had been as it was for a long time, with only relatively minor changes. It has long been accepted that Southgate is known for his published works, music, and recent activities, rather than his associations with ‘far right’ groups in the 80s and 90s.

Beginning from the opening paragraph of the new article, there are no sources listed to link Southgate with far-right activism, fascism, or his publishing house with neo-Nazism.

The far-right activism section contains very outdated and biased information from questionable sources, as does the New Right section, and ‘Views’.

Compared to the detailed and informative old article from the 5th of October, the new article appears as though it’s page vandalism, and a smear campaign against Southgate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The main problem with the previous version is that lots of the references were not reliable sources. Even the current version is not great, but its better sourced than it was. Which explains most of the culling of material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the difference between the old page and the new page, a lot of information has been removed. The list of publications, discography and academic coverage can easily be verified by a quick search online, so there was no need to remove those. The entire new page reads as a smear campaign against Southgate, bringing up some very unreliable sources (and sometimes not sourced at all) about him being far-right and his possible political affiliations from the 80s and 90s, rather than his recent activities as a writer, musician, and publisher. Is this going to happen to the pages of all artists that have controversial political pasts?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

According the article, Southgate is quite active in the far-right circles at present time:

• In 2010, Southgate launched Black Front Press as a publisher of neo-Nazi texts.^[1]

He continues to publish neo-Nazi books (that's how I came across the article; an IP address was attempting to insert them into articles of various Nazi personalities). Southgate is a subject of discussion in the book Cultures of Post-War British Fascism: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The 'Packaging Hate' article linked is no longer accessible. I tried searching for it by its title on the website and it can't be found. Not a source.

Southgate is a historian. If he is writing a history book about a particular era it makes it a history book, not a "neo-Nazi" book. Do you go around changing the pages of all historians who have written works about that period of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Southgate is a historian. He may be an author -- but the one who is self-published through his own publishing house (Black Front Press). He also appears to be a fascist; see link above to Cultures of Post-War British Fascism. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's well known that Southgate has a degree in history, and has published other historical works. I can't see anything in "Cultures of Post-War British Fascism" that points to him being a fascist. It's much too vague. There is no reason for the bibliography, discography, and academic coverage to have been removed from the page. You still have no real sources for your statements about him publishing neo-Nazi books and being a fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

'well known' is not a requirement for WP:V. Likeiwse almost all references to his non-right-wing related activites were sourced to either primary sources, blogs, facebook etc. None of which are reliable for that sort of information. As it is, whoever pruned the article took out the more contentious issues, left those that could be sourced, and left some of the unsourced but uncontentious (ie, can probably be reliably sourced if looked hard enough) info. As it stands, if you can find reliable third party sources that discuss his work, feel free to contribute to the article. See WP:V WP:RS etc first however. Blogs and facebook are almost never acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to find time to look at this more later. Having a degree in history doesn't make someone a historian. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The blogspot and pipex links can't be used in a BLP (and the pipex one is dead). Somehow his organisation New Right disappeared from his article. I think this interview, as it is an interview, might be used, and Cultures of Post-war British Fascism might be used more than it is. The references themselves need expanding, some are just links. I'd suggest looking for more sources for the New Right publication "New Imperium", eg this. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why were the bibliography and discography removed in that case? They can easily be verified by looking on Amazon and Discogs.

If someone publishes a book, and it's through an independent publishing company that keeps a Facebook page rather than a website, does this mean that the book actually hasn't been published, according to Wikipedia standards?! Ridiculous. This is biased against small publishers.

Also what is the difference between a blog and another online source? Many websites are hosted on Wordpress or Blogspot, does this classify them as blogs and therefore sources that can't be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Goatherd2016: I suggest you read through WP:RELIABLE, which should answer all your questions you listed above. If after reading through that Wikipedia policy you still have questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page :) Meatsgains (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Politically Relevant Biography of living person already been target of subtle vandalism definitely violating neutral POV and probably many other guidelines.

Recommend locking the article (and any other politically charged names dropped in accusations, namely Wikileaks and non-accredited journalists) until some sort of verification can be done for changes though at least after the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7715:E9B0:FDAE:157E:D945:3DA8 (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Cark Hewitt seems like a nice, intelligent guy but he got himself into trouble editing Wikipedia. There is a heated dispute between Hewitt and another editor about including his WP editing in his article. I came to the article because I noticed a potential legal threat in one of the Noticeboards. Here's the diff that is causing the problem. I suggested including, as a reference, a link to Hewitt's version of his WP editing history. Hewitt liked that idea but another editor didn't like the idea and changed the sentence (see the diff cited above). I don't think the sentence belongs in the article, it just doesn't seem fair or right. There is a short discussion of it on the Talk Page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll see in the diff that the unreliable John Udell blog has been removed, and the remaining source from the UK Guardian has been more suitably summarized. There is no BLP violation here. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It must be frustrating to be the subject of a wikipedia article that contains content you do not agree with. My wish is that the editors there recognize this fact and act with a little more compassion instead of standing behind the rule book. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just deleted Michael Cash per G10. No objection to someone creating a referenced article, or another admin running an eye over it and giving a second opinion. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Amber DeLuca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of WP:BLP issues, mostly unsourced and apparently tended to by the article's subject. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed the unsourced and promotional content from the page and have nominated it for WP:AFD here for the subject lacking significant notability. I encourage other editors to give their thoughts as to why the article should keep. Meatsgains (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Meatsgains. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, so this article is, to put it lightly, unverifiable. I don't edit here anymore, but someone might want to fix it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to change the visibility of this diff. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note moved content to bottom of page and added section header as it is new content. Added pagelinks Jim1138 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  

Maithripala Sirisena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is regarding His excellency Maithripala Sirisena president of Sri Lanka.please remove the nepotism paragraph under his name.It harms president's character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalistdmy (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment Journalistdmy is a new wp:SPA editor and would appear to have a WP:COI per comments left on my talk page I left a coi message on Journalistdmy's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

An interesting story for whoever wants to sink their teeth in something. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've done some things at this article but, frankly, the article is verifiable in the main. Debouch (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I added one ref and reordered a bit, before Debouch did some very useful maintenance. Doesn't seem to be much more to be done here unless somebody turns up some new sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Brad Allen is a rather short BLP about an NFL referee. I had some doubts about notability and attached a tag to that effect on 19 April of 2015. It was subsequently removed a few days later with an edit summary simply stating that Allen was notable with no further explanation or rational. In any event the article fell off my radar but I recently stumbled back on it and I am still not seeing a strong claim to WP:N. A Google yielded a number of hits but most of the coverage appeared to be of the trivial/run of the mill variety; i.e. announcements that he will be or has refereed a certain game or that he spoke at a dinner etc. Maybe this collectively adds up to WP:N, but I am ambivalent. WP:NSPORT makes no provision for referee or umpires and OUTCOMES doesn't touch on this at all. This pretty much leaves us with WP:BASIC and I'm just not sure Allen rings that particular bell. So here I am asking for some other editors to take a look and let me know what you think. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point about the notability of this person. However, this noticeboard relates to issues concerning WP:BLP and I don't see any problem in that realm. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a tangentially related aspect that might concern this board, in that the press given to refs is almost invariably negative (i.e. sports journalists are mostly biased and the ref is an easy target). It can be hard to write and monitor articles on them. I should know as I probably watch more ref articles than anyone. Ultimately this probably doesn't affect notability and WP:balancing aspects is gold in keeping upset fans in check. Personally though I think a top ref is as notable as a top sportsman, and we have a low bar for them. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This has been quite a contentious issue. It has gone from an argument about one Prussian message to Wellington to one of Wellington's fanboys (Tirailleur) making libellous allegations against myself and others in the Talk section. I have known Hofschroer for many years, albeit know nothing about the recent events, which ended in his imprisonment. I was merely trying to point out the sequence of events and how some fanboys will focus on certain items to cloud an entire subject or author, in an attempt to discredit an entire point of view. I could answer what has been said and point out to Tirailleur that he is engaging in libel, but I think it might be better if Wiki were to remove the entire page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Hofschr%C3%B6er forthwith. DaveHMBA (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)DaveHMBA

I've nominated the page for WP:AfD here. Fell free to address your concerns at the discussion. Meatsgains (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a policy, MOS page or the like that allows for lists of living people to be unreferenced? I notice that a lot of pages under Category:Lists of expatriate association football players are either lightly or completely unreferenced. Hack (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hack: Please see WP:LISTVERIFY. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The section added to this page under the heading Supporting Progressive Catholicism all relates to a single 4-sentence email that Podesta wrote in 2012, released via Wikileaks recently. The article has been improved since its original posting. It still contains two very slanted "attack quotes" that make assertions in no way supported by the email. The relevant portion of Podesta’s 2012 email in its entirety said: "We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be from the bottom up."

The quote from Eternal Word Television Network anchor Raymond Arroyo claims “It makes it seem like you're creating organizations to change the core beliefs of the church,” he said. “For someone to come and say, 'I have a political organization to change your church to complete my political agenda or advance my agenda', I don't know how anybody could embrace that.” This is not only an unsubstantiated assertion but is at odds with Podesta's email itself, which nowhere mentions changing the "core beliefs of the church" not a" political organization," nor a political agenda. The other quote, from Anne Hendershott, says the email vindicated the position of "orthodox Catholic writers including myself" who oppose the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, which she called "fake Catholic groups."[43] By this, she seems to mean that they don't adhere to the same view of Catholic doctrine that she does. Catholics for the Common Good was created by Catholics, is run by Catholics, and is made up of Catholics which makes it a Catholic group. See its website, which notes that it was the number 1 quoted Catholic organization during Pope Francis's visit to the US. Judging from Catholics United's Wikipedia page, it too appears to be a genuine Catholic organization, albeit one that disagrees with Professor Hendershott. Neither of these disparaging, unsupported quotes belong in Wikipedia. I deleted them for that reason, but they have been restored, and I received a warning that I was vandalizing Wikipedia and would be denied further editing privileges if I persisted.

This 4-sentence email receives more space than Podesta's 8 years, several of them as Chief of Staff, during the Wm J. Clinton Administration, and his eight years founding and leading the Center for American Progress combined. I defer to more experienced editors to decide whether his email, though seized on by a political campaign to support a claim that the other campaign is anti-Catholic, justifies any space at all in a Wikipedia biography of someone who, whether one likes him or not, has been involved in so many noteworthy events.

One further suggestion: The article currently cites, as its source for information about the email, a Washington Post article that also contained inaccuracies. Like many of the citations that other editors have now wisely deleted from the article, that seems intentional.Why not cite instead directly to the Wikileaks page: https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/6293 I would make the change myself, but given the threatening response to my last edit, it seems better to make the change here.

Thanks!Thewholetruthisbest (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this part of the article is over-weighted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Thewholetruthisbest and I just spoke on IRC about this issue, and I thought I'd chime in briefly. I don't think the section is biased, as it merely quotes others. I think quotes representing other points of view could be found and added, or these quotes could be removed as needed. I think the number of sources discussing this aspect of Podesta's public life justify the amount of "page inches" it has received, especially since his name is now a household name primarily due to the Wikileaks releases. In all, I think this is a tempest in a teapot and shouldn't rise to the level of "libel", especially not from Wikipedia's perspective. But someone should maybe alert the legal teams for the two cited sources that someone is on the warpath... --MarkTraceur (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the entire section for now until there's consensus as I believe it violates WP:BLP (biography of a living person). The emails haven't been authenticated. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and according to WP:RSBREAKING, all breaking news stories are primary sources. All of these stories came out within a day or two of the wikileak and it's hardly been covered by reputable sources since then, making all of the available sources primary, which is inappropriate for contentious statements in a BLP (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Please do not revert without consensus as that would violate WP:BLPREMOVE. —PermStrump(talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor seems to have recently gone through the article, changing every instance (even in refs) of the subject's name from "Storm Keating" to "Sharyn Uechtritz". They haven't provided explanation or sourcing. Would it be possible for someone to roll back the changes? Doing it by hand is very difficult because I'm having trouble telling what should be kept and what shouldn't due to the multiple conflicting edits they've made. Thanks. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's been sufficiently reverted — several people have helped — and I've semiprotected for a week. Please check if it looks all right to you, Rasimmons. I left Sharyn Uechtritz as "birth name" in the infobox, since the article's first reference appears to support it. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. It looks great, and good call on leaving the birth name—it does seem to be correct. I gave the offending IP a level 2 disruptive editing warning, myself. Thanks for your help. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Intro section of Kyle Schwarber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains vandalism re: Joe Buck love and marriage

Fixed. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

James Heilman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of edits by a handful of IPs to this page recently. It being a BLP, I would appreciate additional eyes to make sure none of these edits violate BLP (or any other) policy. I think one of them did (I have since reverted the edit, in which an IP described Heilman as "controversial"). Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BLP violation as such but this crap is pretty insanely petty. Extra eyes on the page would not hurt. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

this man was removed from the special forces assoc.. for lying about his past — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmach (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

[[17]] [[18]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmach (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Article was a bit of a mess, I've done some cleanup but it could use more eyes as people have repeatedly tried to add questionable material. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This article was massively undue[19] and most of it was easy to fix (the usual complaints refs get from fans when their team loses, much of it unsourced).[20] However I would like some advice on this source,[21] which is used to cite Stark has received criticism throughout his career, and was elected as the worst referee of the first half of the 2010–11 Bundesliga by the players.. Is 'Kicker online' a reliable source? Does the source support the statement? It won't let me open it in google translate, but it seems to be a poll run by the website. Finally and probably most importantly, even if the above is acceptable given that this is a BLP and in particular looking at the WP:BALASP policy, should this still be mentioned in this way? Stark is a top referee (he refereed in the 2010 world cup) and having such strong criticism without balancing it with positives that must exist for someone to reach this level to me seems to violate WP:undue. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

A person is violating BLPs by using sources such as mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/, allmusic.com, for listing people who are influenced by the concerning figure. These websites are not reliable sources, they can be edited by just anybody, thus violation of WP:BLP. Excelse (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Home address for Taron Egerton is listed under references #2. It should be removed as it poses a risk to him, or anyone who lives at that address if someone else lives there and the address is in fact incorrect. The address should be completely removed and not be allowed to be reinserted. This should be criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerupper846826 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been removed. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to attract attention of admins and more experienced users to the article about Marques Brownlee, a tech YouTuber. The article contains a section speculating on his middle name. Aside from clearly violating WP:BLPSOURCES the subject of the article itself has denied the validity of the information, claimed that he tried to edit the information and has cited how the false information negatively impacts him (Google knowledge graph pulling false information from Wikipedia and displaying it to Google users). See here.

Personally, I propose that any speculation on the middle name is entirely removed from the article, only to be mentioned in the article lead if there is clear reliable source. Melmann^(talk) 16:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced claim of "Kramblebamble", as it fails verification, and there is only one google hit for that and it is his WP page. I also agree it should be removed until reliable sources are found, Facebook and YouTube don't cut it either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am the subject of the page John Sackar. Some of the information on this page is incorrect and inaccurate. It violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy because it is "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and should therefore "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

I request that this information be edited and removed, as specified below.

(1) I note that the first paragraph is inaccurate and should be changed to "who had a diverse and wide-ranging practise in Australia and often appeared in the courts of London and Brunei."

(2) The section "years as a barrister" is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The following should be removed "His Honour most notably appeared for the Australian Rugby League in the Super League litigation, for Biota in a case in relation to the drug Relenza, the Commonwealth in support of the claim against it by Pan Pharmaceuticals, the mother of Michael Hutchence in defamation proceedings against the Sun Herald, the Australian Rugby Union in relation to the sacking of Lote Tuqiri and for John Curtin House and Robert Hawke in the Centenary House Inquiries. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull read with Justice Sackar in his early years at the NSW Bar" because it is inaccurate and poorly sourced.

(3) The section "interests" contains material that is completely incorrect (these are not my interests) and poorly sourced. The whole section should be removed immediately.

I thank you for your assistance in resolving these inaccuracies for the betterment of this page and Wikipedia in general.

Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. Made most of the changes as the sourcing was non-existent for much of it. I left in the interest in art and agriculture as that is sourced, but might remove it anyway unless anyone objects as it is pretty trivial. Will cross post at the article talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The profile of Michael Zinigrad contains the following claim "Michael Zinigrad is the author of over 200 scientific papers, 6 patents, 22 textbooks."

Four days ago a warning was posted with the following text:

• The publication profile of Prof. Zinigrad does not match the publication data in the Web of Science | In the Web of science his h-index is 5, and total citations is 150. His two most cited publications have been authored by Prof. Bormashenko. This record of publications is not even sufficient to be appointed as a professor. Zinigrad's CV referenced in the profile includes a list of books many of which are apparently laboratory manuals of 12 to 40 pages. These types of publications should not be considered books.

I checked this claim and confirmed it. There is no evidence for "200 papers" in the Web of Science. He has only a few papers cited a few times. The two papers cited most are by Prof. Bormashenko who is an accomplished scientist at Ariel University. Apparently Zinigrad received coauthorship for possible administrative considerations as the papers are not at in Zinigrad's areas of expertise.

The claims for biographies of living persons require verification. The best source to verify publications in Chemistry is Web of Science. In this source there is no support for the claim of "200 papers".

The complaint against his so called "books" of 12-40 papes of laboratory manuals is also true.

I also checked patent databases and did not find records for "6 patents". All of these claims should be referenced. Otherwise it may seem that the profile is not verified and the claims should be erased.

I paid particular attention to this profile because Michael Zinigrad is the Rector of Ariel University whose accreditation was received with some criticism in the Israeli academia.

Another disturbing item about the profile is that the profile has a link to the University and college presidents implying that he is listed as the Ariel University President. But Zinigrad is not president of the Ariel University.

In summary, it appears that Zinigrad's profile has been written by a media relations agent without paying attention to the academic verification of the content.

For a person fulfilling the role of the supreme Academic Head of the youngest University in Israel, the truth of the claims in the profile should be scrutinized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.169.28 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Would someone please lockdown that page? It's become a political battlefield. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Mains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page is repeatedly populated with Kickstarter information not relevant to notability, repeated posting by vexacious editor with personal interest, sustained attack. Is being used to damage reputation. Violates biography of living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.51.201 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this guy even passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG for that matter. Two of the sources being used are blogs (one returns a 404), which isn't optimal for a WP:BLP. A quick Google search doesn't look promising either. A search for the Kickstarter episode turns up nothing as well. Maybe a trip to AfD is warranted here to see if this article should even be included on WP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The page Mike Adams (columnist) has been expanded and rewritten in a defamatory way by both an IP account and a new account that has contributed nothing else to Wikipedia. The edit also violates NPOV, has very few citations, and is badly organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.239 (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits reverted, IP warned. Thanks for the heads up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph, "Santiago Jimeñez GOD[1] (Spanish pronunciation: [Satan Lord Santi]; born 15 May 2001)[2] is a Mexican God who serves as Dictator of Mexico since 15 May 2001, He is a member of the Justice Warriors, one of the three major Mexican political parties." seems to have no relevance ??

Older revision stated: Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa GCB[1] (Spanish pronunciation: [feˈlipe kaldeˈɾon] ( listen); born 18 August 1962)[2] is a Mexican politician who served as President of Mexico from 1 December 2006, to 30 November 2012. He is a member of the National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, PAN), one of the three major Mexican political parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilymarvin (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Gameplayers hit the BLP. Might an admin lock it down, perchance? Collect (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semied two days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced. Seems to be self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinchu.c (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Chennithala --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The part "promoter" failed verification and unsourced text was restored to the lead. I don't think we should keep unsourced text or text that failed verification in the article. It is up to the editor who wants to include the text to find a source to verify the claim. The edit summary does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Young M.A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would be grateful for guidance on BLP privacy policy specifically with regard to name disclosure. Both Billboard and Rolling Stone mention that Young M.A declines to give her birth name, so I had deleted; however, editor Xboxmanwar disagrees with me, saying, "Her full name was already published in major articles like here, here, and here, and she already shown it herself here, here, here and here." To me this does not satisfy the "widely published by reliable sources" criteria nor the criteria that we can reasonably infer the subject does not object when we do have multiple reliable sources specifically saying she objects. Since we have a good-faith but important disagreement, it'd be great to have some guidance. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose there's a related question for DOB as well. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Her name is out there, in RS. There is no putting that back in the bottle. As the trademark and copyright pages show, this is not gossip but a key legal fact. This is entirely different from not publishing the name of a crime victim or the like. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The trademark and copyright pages are clearly the kind of primary sources BLP policy explicitly excludes though: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details" (emphasis in the original). And I can't see how we've met the "widely published in reliable sources" threshold--I count at best two reliable secondary sources that mention it, which really is not "widely", and even less so when two other (and frankly, more reliable) sources explicitly tell us she doesn't disclose the name (and many, many others simply leave her birth name out completely.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP whose references have been taken out, but still exist in its history. What to do? Bearian (talk)

An admin should probably rollback to the last good version. That's what I see done most often. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 18:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wiki articles for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not have citations next to their years of birth. So why do the articles for Angelina Jolie and countless others? A citation implies the existence of ambiguity or contention. Jolie's year of birth has never been a matter of debate. Being the daughter of a celebrity, there were press announcements when she was born. There have never been any discrepancies about her age. Her age has never been lied about or misrepresented by the press.

A citation next to the subject's birthdate is necessary in articles for people who have lied about their age, e.g. Geena Davis, Rebecca De Mornay, Jessica Chastain, James Blunt, Timothy Dalton. All of them have had varying birth years published in magazines, almanacs and websites. For Wikipedia entries of people whose birthdates have never varied, such as Jolie, it's pointless and potentially confusing to include a citation. This should be a new guideline and changes should be implemented to all applicable articles, in my opinion.

It seems that an editor or group of editors are playing God on this site. For comparison, Kate Winslet and Julia Roberts' articles have a pointless citation next to their birthdates (pointless because their cited birthdates have never varied) while the article for Madonna, who has, in fact, lied about her age (it is well-documented [22][23]) has no citation next to her birthdate. I suppose that because Madonna's true date of birth has been on record for so long, the editors on her page find it unnecessary to include a citation or to even acknowledge past lies and discrepancies regarding the date.

There is yet another aspect of this issue at hand. When one tried to remove a useless citation next to a non-contentious birth year, an administrative editor will usually revert quickly with an edit summary such as "birth dates need citations." Often, the re-inserted citation will be to a notoriously unreliable source such as FilmReference.com which is one of the most laughably inaccurate websites out there. It seems that some editors just want a quick fix and don't care enough to investigate the matter unless someone creates a discussion over it. There is a careless double standard on WP that needs to be addressed and dealt with. I am not interested in editing such pages, and at the moment I can't, actually, because I'm on a temporary ban from BLP's due to months-ago edit wars, but hopefully someone will take notice and make the appropriate changes. Iistal (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The rule on birthdates is not only that they need to be cited, but should be widely reported in such a way that it is clearly not a privacy issue. Lacking that, we should assume that privacy of the date is an issue for the subject and leave it out. This rule is applied on a case-by-case basis. For presidential candidates, privacy is clearly not an issue. For actors and singers, it may very well be. If someone chooses to lie about their private information, that is completely understandable. If you see any uncited birthdates feel free to challenge them or simply remove them per BLP. In most cases they are completely unnecessary for understanding the subject. Zaereth (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Libelous and defamatory content is being posted against Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai to reduce him to "...being known for his incorrect claim to have invented email" This appears now as the FIRST sentence to clearly have Google search bring this up first. This is clearly vindictive and libelous following his settlement with Gawker Media. This content was initially posted by an anonymous user with IP address 72.226.22.122 on November 3 and deserves immediate investigation. In addition, user:: GNUish continues to post and maintain this defamatory and libelous statement. I am reverting back to what it was prior to November 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesByron (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately for those without a WP:NPOV on this matter, there's a ridiculously long list of WP:V WP:RSs demonstrating that Ayyadurai's claims are false. Those editors should also study WP:3RR ... richi (hello) 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I'm moving my reply here, for transparency. After reviewing the edit history, I'm afraid all I can see here is a ranty, newly-minted account accusing editors with whom they disagree of being racists—accounts have been blocked for less. The editor also accuses respected ARPAnet technologists of being racists (surely a BLP violation). All Crocker et al were doing was recounting a history that differs from the new editor's beliefs. Reasonable people can disagree on the use of "incorrectly" in the lede, and can debate the same in good faith on the Talk page.

To the actual encyclopedia issue: From my reading of the sources, the BLP subject is not notable for inventing email, nor is he notable for claiming to have invented it; however he is notable for his false claims. And his false claims have been verifiably shown to morph when disproved—several times. (The Gawker lawsuit is, of course, all about Univision wanting the Hulk Hogan circus over and done with, so proves little.) ... richi (hello) 10:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Richi has gone on Social Media and has stated Ayyadurai did not invent email. He's not biased?! He along with a cabal is clearly into defaming Ayyadurai. I stated the facts that Ayyadurai has 4 degrees. Richi immediately deleted it. Ayyadurai has four degrees and it is referenced and verified with MIT. Are you going to block me for stating facts?! Richi is a meatpuppet and it appears Gestrid is part of this nonsense. BTW 4 other publications refer to Ayyadurai based on facts. However, your cabal deletes them on the biased assumption that he did not invent email. You are asserting opinions about Univision. Again as others have said you are biased, and it is reflected in the editing. This must end. I dare you to delete that he does not have 4 degrees. I want an investigation on Richi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesByron (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Good day,

I am concerned that you state in his Bio page that he served as a bodyguard with the Royal Military Police. I was serving with the Royal Military Police during the time Mr R-J served in HM Forces and can categorically state he never served with the Royal Military Police. Furthermore the attendance on the Royal Military Close Protection course was limited to serving Military Police (Army, RN, RM or RAF) or overseas soldiers whose Governments paid for their attendance (rare). Nor did the RMP allow attachments to RMP units for the purpose of Close Protection. I wish to highlight this to correct the inaccuracy and to alert readers of the prolific claims by former soldiers to have attended the RMP CP course and served tours of duty in that capacity. It certainly never happened up to 2012.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The article Trevor Rees-Jones (bodyguard) does not state that "he served as a bodyguard with the Royal Military Police": it says "he was incorrectly reported to have ... been a close-protection officer in the Royal Military Police". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I find that sentence odd. Why are we reporting 'he was incorrectly reported as *stuff*' sourced to his own book? Its a primary source, there is no source for the reports, why is any of that relevant? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

This person was recently accused in a lawsuit, not a criminal case, of sexual abuse back in the 90s which he denies. This was reported in several reliable media sources: both general and specific to his field. He asked a friend to look into removing it from Wikipedia and through 2 intermediaries this request got to me. I'm not 100% if it should be removed as several WP:BLP policies seem unclear to me and searching the talk page there and here a bit, I couldn't find a clear point about what qualifies an accusation to be sufficient to include for an already notable person: you don't want to include every frivolous gossip story but once an actual lawsuit is filed, I'm not sure. For now, I'm removing it as it seems too much but I'm not 100% sure on this (the sources can be seen in the history or on his talk page). Although the request originated with the individual, I don't see a WP:COI because WP:BLP tends to respect people's right to a good name on unproven information. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Would some more people take a look at the article. There is quite a bit of information out there on this person but the sources being used are pretty much tabloid, low information, high credulity ones. I do not doubt the author wants to write a good article but they seem to me to miss the point of NPOV, DUE and what is biographical information vs tabloid trivia and do not make use of the talk page.

I think there are some really good sources out there because the subject is quite a big deal in the region and he and similar "prophets" are studied by academics. I tried to stub the article [24] using a high quality source as a place holder. My objectivity is pretty much shot for now and other eyes are needed. Jbh^Talk 14:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Good job there Jbh. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh, there was also a BLP violating regarding his spending and the cars he bought his wife etc, which was completely unsourced. The BBC ref only relates to the last sentence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I had stripped that (I did however think the fact he owned the mansion was in the sources. I was wrong.) and some other stuff in this [25] while trying to find a compromise version Simon Mugabe would be happy with before deciding to try to stub it because the sources were crap and there was no way to write something NPOV/BLP compliant. Everything was replaced and it felt like I was edit warring to fix stuff, hence this thread.

I still think stubbing is the best option. I personally do not think most of the sources are of a quality suitable for a BLP and the ones that are are mostly negative. As I said above, I think there are some high quality sources on him and his movement but fighting to fix the article is just edit warring now. Jbh^Talk 16:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Could someone who has knowledge of Arabic languages please take a look at the list of biographies created on this user's userpage? I looked at a few and none really seem to meet notability, but without a knowledge of the language of the sources, I cannot be sure. Will notify the author. John from Idegon (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking further, this may actually belong at WP:COIN, but I'd appreciate some feedback before going there. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The website link below Sharon Profis's profile photo (Website sharonprofis.com) does not lead to a bonafide website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplifyLife (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Burhan-Rasool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, at Burhan-Rasool I think we are reaching a decent level of quality; however we have disagreement about the notability of the topic. Would someone pop in at the talk page for additional guidance? Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

There are two swearwords on his talkpage ("moron" and "jackass"). There is also an ongoing debate about whether he is a climate skeptic or denier. I have decided to stop spending time trying to improve this article and I won't edit it again (unless things calm down), but can you please remove the swearwords and try to fix the POV issues? This is a hot-button issue, but we should try to make the article as NPOV as possible. Good luck and thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The comment above is woefully inaccurate. The article is in good shape and does not have POV issues. There is no debate about whether Myron Ebell is a climate skeptic or denier; according to numerous reliable sources he is both. Rather, the above user falsely characterized Ebell as a "climate change analyst" in the article's lede, while repeatedly refusing requests for reliable sources supporting that characterization. When I changed "climate change analyst" to "global warming skeptic", the user twice reverted it back to "climate change analyst", and claimed on the talk page that I had "vandalized" the article. The user insisted that Wikipedia must remain "neutral" and not "take a position" on climate change -- the user seems to think that purging Wikipedia of any mention of climate science denial is "neutral". At the same time, on the Myron Ebell talk page the user claimed that there is no scientific consensus on the subject, and then immediately thereafter claimed that he has no opinion about it. It's not clear why he posted this entry on the BLP Noticeboard, as no BLP issue has been identified. Despite having edited Wikipedia for 10 years, the user seems to have no understanding of any of Wikipedia's policies, never links to the policy pages, never refers to any policy other than NPOV, which he completely misunderstands, and never takes into account the points about policy made by others. This results in the user repeatedly being involved in interminable debates that never progress, with the user simply stating the same thing over and over. The user received a topic ban on climate change, which he erroneously claims on his talk page was issued in order to humiliate him. The user says that he "feels humiliated by Wikipedia", and has "gone on strike", creating a category for same of which he is the only entry. 184.189.217.210 (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The biography of Avina Shah contains a number of assertions and unverifiable facts. There are web links to websites belonging To Avina selling products rather than links supporting citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.47.122 (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice on repeated vandalism of Wikipedia pages of Mr. Frank Melloul, CEO of i24News

On behalf of our client, Mr. Frank Melloul, CEO of i24News, I address you as follows:

1. Mr. Melloul has had two Wikipedia pages, one in English and the other in French, since 2009.

2. In the past year the pages have been repeatedly and consistently vandalized by anonymous persons apparently wishing harm upon our client’s reputation and personally vested in doing so.

3. One major example involves the insertion of text that cites two articles, one of a weekly newspaper and the other in a broadcast via video tape recorder on French television, which bear connection and were used as a source of libel against my client. The inserted text, which is false and hints at personal enmity, reads: “Not only have i24 News channels failed to take off, but the work atmosphere is also harmful; several employees complain of having suffered humiliations, brutally handled layoffs or threats to undergo lie detector tests.” http://teleobs.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20150128.OBS1018/i24news-une-chaine-sous-haute-tension.html, Published February 4, 2015 at 1:00pm and http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/l-obs-du-soir/20150128.OBS1095/i24-news-la-petite-chaine-israelienne-qui-ne-monte-pas.html, Published January 28, 2015 at 6:46pm)

4. In addition, from mid-2015 until May 2016 many attempts to add new information to Frank Melloul’s page were made unsuccessfully, with the added text being consistently removed immediately after, including: • an attempt to change the “Controversies” (“polémiques” in French) section; • an attempt to add links to articles supporting information on Frank Melloul’s role on the television channel’s expansion and development; although our client added all the links to the more reputable articles supporting this information, these were removed the day after. • an attempt to outline the fact that Frank Melloul named Paul Amar as the television content director; an attempt to give a better description of Patrick Drahi’s role in the channel; A situation such as this one – where our client’s attempts to add content to his page fail as a result of someone removing new and positive information from the page, – is unbearable.

5. We therefore request that one of the following two courses of action, which Wikipedia offers, be taken without delay:

(a) Render the pages found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melloul and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melloul as protected pages that only system operators can edit. (b) Locate and block the vandalizing user.

6. To avoid any doubt, the foregoing does not constitute a waiver of any claim of our client.

Respectfully, Rakefet Peled, Adv Gilat, Bareket & Co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.77.210 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI. If the COE of a company makes edits on a topic he has a close relationship with, they will be reverted on principle, and eventually, if the behaviour continues, the editor will likely be bocked from editing. I note he has been warned about this already. As for the edits you concern yourself with, although the wording could probably be phrased more neutrally, it appears to be referenced to a reliable source. Encoule any legal claims on Wikipedia: please read WP:NLT immediately. I also note that your request to have the page protected was declined. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Its not a threat to take legal action, its a standard disclaimer generally required when any legal person acts/makes a request on behalf of a client. "If you fulfil this request, this does not mean we wont take legal action in the future on behalf of them" is what it actually means. Although you could argue 'chilling' its not very, since regardless of if action is taken or not, they still might at a later point take action ;) To Rakefet Peled:

1. The essence of the NLT policy is that any threats of legal actions against wikipedia editors will result in your account being blocked until the threat is retracted. This does not mean you cannot take legal action should you choose to, but it means you will not be able to participate here.

2. Articles are generally protected against overt vandalism which respectfully what you have posted is not. The sources used for the material are reliable as wikipedia defines it in WP:RS. Wikipedia reflects what is in the sources. If you have successfully sued the original posters of the material for libel, that would be a different matter, as we are not generally in the business of publishing material that has been found by a court to be false.

3. Absent any evidence that the sources used are unreliable, your request is unlikely to be fulfilled as you have phrased it.

4. We have zero control over what happens at the French version of wikipedia. Each language version of wikipedia is a stand-alone project which is run by its own editors.

5. WP:RSN may be a place to get further information on if the sources used in the article are reliable for the material being discussed.

6. Wikipedia generally frowns upon editors with a conflict of interest (either directly as the subject, or indirectly when acting for a subject) editing the article directly. The approach used is to make requests on the talk page of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Death, for clarity, I did not say it was a legal threat (a claim, only): I was merely making someone whose role is often that of having to make 'legal threats' aware of the policy we have, thus (hopefully) avoiding their doing so, and, as you said, their inevitable blocking  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. As it stands though while the source appears reliable. I cant find much else who has covered it. An argument could be made to revert the material as UNDUE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be that searching for anything related to i24 immediately brings up mostly news reports by i24... I've re-worded it, so hopefully it at least doesn't sound like quite so much of a hatchet-job. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Encoule" goes way beyond merely making someone aware of policy. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Something odd is going on here. For several months someone has been trying to add "Marie" as a middle name for Jamie Lynn Spears, even going so far as to create a user account under the name JLSpearsWatson (talk · contribs). There are no sources to back this up.

But my concern today is the list of children's names at Lynne Spears. There are several sources listed, and some of the names are there, but many have been changed from what's given in the sources. It's hard to tell what the relationships are from the sources, and to untangle them all. Only a few of the children are notable. My concern is that listing non-notable children and getting their names wrong seems like a BLP violation to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Alexey Stakhov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article reads like an advertisement, but the subject is obviously notable. Could anyone who has knowledge of the relevant subject areas please help with cleanup? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the subject area, but this obviously self-written article's "biography" section is completely unsourced. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone recently added Nikki Lane's date of birth to her article, citing this as a source. I wasn't sure if this source was reliable enough to comply with WP:RS and WP:BLP (partly because I couldn't find any other sources listing this as her DOB), so I wanted to know what others thought. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, [26] gives the same date, but there's no way to know who entered that or when. [27] says that she was 25 in 2011, which is consistent with her being born in 1986. OTOH, [28], also written on 2011, says she was 28. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Theres also this which says she was 30 in 2014. Everymorning (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Defamatory and gross BLP violations at Harry Michaels on November 7th and today. I have asked for for temporary extended confirmed protection at WP:RPP. I had reverted an attempt to speedy delete the article placed by the subject or an associate of the subject and for the moment the offensive content has been reverted. But this clearly needs a good look by an administrator. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent names for top positions in the incoming Trump Administration :

Regardless of what anyone thinks of them pro or con, they all will start needing lots more attention as new names come out:

So far:

Stephen Bannon

and

Reince Priebus

The 2nd one was already put into the "pending changes configuration" thingy, that is a good thing.

Both pages could use more people looking at them, and cleanup, and attention for lots of incoming vandalism and POV pushing -- unfortunately, from both sides of perspectives.

Maybe semi-protection, but definitely the "pending changes" thingy, needed, for both. The 2nd article already has the "pending changes" thingy, desperately need something for that first one.

Thank you guys ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Check that: Too much incoming vandalism and disruption. Most appropriate would be both the pending changes thingy and full form of the semi-protection for both pages. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Karen Pence's birthday is 1/1/1957 - NOT in November.

Can you verify? I can't seem to find a source. Meatsgains (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Portion of career entry is copy-pasted from a Reddit article, which I feel is not appropriate. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.196.251 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, removed Govindaharihari (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A complaint by a private citizen against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg has been falsely characterized as a criminal indictment by German authorities. Please see details at Talk:Sheryl_Sandberg#New_section_falsely_alleges_criminal_indictment. Given the severity of the highly contentious material think I could change it myself under BLP policy, but since I have a WP:COI as a paid rep of Facebook's PR agency, Outcast, I prefer if an independent editor review the situation and make the changes. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)BC1278.

I am a former employee of Richard Pombo. His page could use some updating. I made changes last week but they were reversed. I laid out my concerns with the current article and proposed a comprehensive change at [[29]]. Thank you. --Rencoyote (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Clive Baldock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Assistance requested--a biography that appears to be largely overseen by COI accounts. Few or no references, but numerous external links and a copious list of the subject's publications. If I cut most of the latter I anticipate some resistance--also, I wouldn't know where to start or finish, especially since there's no indication as to which are most noteworthy, but practice and good sense suggest ten or twelve publications are sufficient. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Undercited, overfluffed. Trimmed in a desire to cut to what is possibly notable. Collect (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gaolinual (talk · contribs) now gets personal, because he wants a claim of diagnosis of ADHD in the article Gao Yuanyuan, sourced with a Youtube Video. WP:NOENG applies here, but my request was ignored. Therefore I removed the material again due to lack of Verifiability. (WP:BLPPRIMARY WP:BLPREMOVE WP:NOENG WP:V)

User Gaolinual reverts my edits over an extended period of time already, there are no other contributions from this user, thus I put it on the Noticeboard. --212.95.7.114 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The SPA seems to not understand that videos are problematic sources absent any transcript or translation, which means we have no actual knowledge of what the video supports or does not support as a medical claim. Hence, we err on the conservative side here. Collect (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Completely unsourced biography. Author keeps removing BLPPROD without providing sources. Need someone either to keep an eye on this or help fix the article. Thanks. Bradv 14:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Bannon's wife in sworn court documents during their divorce claimed he made antisemitic remarks. He denied this through a spokesperson. Breitbart News, which he heads, has been accused of antisemitism. The SPLC and others have criticised Bannon's recent white house appointment. That so, here are two paragraphs discussing the controversy:

On November 13, 2016, he was appointed Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President-Elect Donald J. Trump, drawing criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, the Council on American–Islamic Relations and the Southern Poverty Law Center due the the alt-right's connection with white nationalism.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

Bannon's association with the alt-right movement along with his alleged anti-Semitic remarks have led to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center, media outlets, and Senator Harry Reid. ^[7][8][9]

I take issue with "led to" in the second paragraph. The SPLC does not mention the exwife's claims once, "media outlets" is wrong - the washpo just mentions the claims after discussing the splc's accusation without vouching for "led to" and Harry Reid is a notorious mudslinger who does not care about truth partisan attack dog (see the Romney tax controversy). NPalgan2 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

How quaint -- a complaint about an alleged BLP violation that contains a BLP violation ("Harry Reid..."). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Come on - would we include Marco Rubio's "Barack Obama wants to destroy America" in Obama's article? Toning down language to avoid sidetracking discussion. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Do it right -- see WP:REFACTOR, use strikeout... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

perhaps you should report me again? NPalgan2 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's okay, I fixed it for you. You're welcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

While it's not a BLP violation, I think we should leave Harry out of it. He's not exactly an neutral commentator.- MrX 20:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is a WP:BLP violation - all opinionated sources not being represented as such. All the opponents of (whoever) said he was a (add whatever opinionated biased insults you want here) - please see and read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - at the death, call him a nazi, it won't help, he is still going to be one of the most powerful peeps in the States and without any democratic comeback in the senate. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm very familiar with our policies. The second paragraph of the content under discussion is a plain statement of facts with full attribution. Your claim that "it's all opinionated sources not being represented as such" is a non-sensical as it is ungrammatical. Perhaps you should read/see WP:BLP yourself.- MrX 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

opinions from strongly biased sources even with attribution when presented as if neutral is a WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violation, it's hardly worth objecting to anyway, all the biased content written here failed to get Clinton elected and this smear content won't make a tad of difference to the election result anyways Govindaharihari (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You have every right to think of the SPLC and ADL as "strongly biased sources", but the fact is that their opinions are highly cited and widely respected, which is what matters for Wikipedia purposes. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV explains how we routinely handle such content. I'm going to disregard the rest of your comment which seems gratuitous and inflammatory.- MrX 21:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

highly cited and widely respected yes, but only by bigoted and biased reporting sources. For your assistance, Intellectuals are always neutral. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably we should include it. But for the rest of the discussion, it is essential to use sources for both sides of the story. Also describe and cite both sides neutrally. Avaya1 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Bannon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Bannon#voter_registration Speculation that Bannon violated Florida voter registrsation laws should not be in the article. Basically, Bannon claimed Florida residency to take advantage of their sweet, sweet low taxes but the property he registered at does not seem to be lived in. According to one of the articles linked, lawyers often suggest to their clients to register to vote in FL to help establish residency. There's no hint he's being investigated for tax fraud. The entire story seems to have petered out with nothing since August. Money Quote: "Election officials in Miami-Dade County confirmed Tuesday that the local state attorney's office requested Stephen Bannon's voter records last week.

"I know that there is an investigation but I know very little about it," said Rosy Pastrana, executive assistant to the county's election supervisor. "They requested voter records for him, which is why I know there is an investigation going on."

Pastrana told NBC News there was nothing obvious in Bannon's voter record that suggested fraud to her, especially since he had not voted in Miami-Dade since registering there in April 2014.

"There is nothing here that I see that he did wrong," she said." As it stands, this should *not* be in a WP:BLP. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutor-probes-trump-campaign-ceo-stephen-bannon-s-voter-record-n640326 NPalgan2 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: this is now the subject of an RfC at Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on Bannon's voter registration. StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We need a lot more eyes on this article, both BLP-savvy and FRINGE-savvy. The subject is the President-elect's choice to handle transition at EPA, and is an activist opposing efforts to combat man-caused climate change. He denies that it's a real problem. Conversation on the talk page wasn't exemplary to start with, but it's degenerating further. I've just reverted one partisan's significant changes to the article and I expect that to heat things up further, although I explained my reasons, which I believe to be policy-compliant, in my edit summary and on the talk page. Your assistance would be most welcome. David in DC (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Not married, or ever married to Debra Shipley. Cannot remove link when searched on Google. Please resolve immediately. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.58.180 (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

While that article certainly has its problems, it doesn't make such a claim. The information you're seeing in a Google search does not come from Wikipedia - use Google's Feedback link to report the problem. Bradv 14:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, Google likely got that fact from Wikipedia, as we had it on our page for Ms. Shipley until the complaining editor deleted it today. Still, use Google's feedback link (below the results box) to try to fix Google. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Ms. Shipley may have been married to a different Simon Molesworth who died in 2004, according to this article from the BBC. Bradv 15:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've included that link in a feedback to Google. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

According to news reports, David Malpass is being considered for a high level position within the new Trump administration, possibly Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Malpass was the chief economist at Bear Stearns for the six years leading up to its collapse in early 2008. Also, in an article in late June of 2008, Mr. Malpass was quoted as making a case against the consensus economist sentiment, and he predicted GDP growth of 3% in the second half of that year. However, real, chained GDP actually fell 1.9% in the third quarter and dropped a dramatic 8.2% in the fourth quarter. The sources for this information are clearly cited. Multiple editors are regularly deleting this information on his page as soon as it appears, clearly trying to keep this factual information from coming to light before he is nominated for a senior level economic-related position in the Trump administration. I think this information should be available to the public and would like to lock it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swizzer (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Mike Pompeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This needs eyes from more disciplined editors. I've semi-protected the article to cut down on the disruption, and I've taken the position that I can also edit the article to prevent BLP violations, but the line is getting too blurry for me to continue editing the article. Therefore, I'm hoping others will take the laboring oar. The most problematic edits - and they are coming from seasoned editors, I believe - are the changes to the infobox to make Pompeo the designate or nominee of the office of CIA Director, even though neither can really happen until Trump takes office and actually does something. The reports from Trump about his intention to nominate Pompeo are already well-reported in the body of the article, as they should be, but the other stuff is obviously, and unfortunately not surprisingly, jumping the gun. Frankly, I wish the article hadn't been on my watchlist (I have no idea why it is to be honest).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunita Williams

Under Personal Life section, I believe some false information has been included.

Please review these differences identified here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunita_Williams&type=revision&diff=750031012&oldid=743562033

The most recent edit seems childish and immature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:4300:4870:5DA9:1049:6623:FF95 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been reverted.--Auric talk 18:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Editors have been unwilling to remove material which the subject considers defamatory, or to include mitigating information because of WP:SYNTH issues. See talk:Paul Frampton. Because of the defamation, Frampton has requested that his article be deleted. He easily meets WP:PROF notability guidelines. Per Frampton's request, I've listed the article at AfD. But, I would rather see the article fixed. JerryRussell (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this board can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive173#Paul_Frampton, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174#Paul_Frampton, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive235#Paul Frampton again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: you mean because of the alleged defamation... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If it looks like defamation, smells like defamation, tastes like defamation, and bears all the hallmarks of defamation, what term is better? WP:NPOV at the very least requires us to include material from the alleged perp. Collect (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Alleged"?? No, he was convicted... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! The fact is that he is not primarily noted for the crime - and the fact is that standards of proof in foreign courts might not be the same as in the US and UK. But - yes HE IS A CONVICTED FELON WHOSE NAME SHOULD BE SHOUTED IN A WIKIPEDIA BIOGRAPHY! Better? Collect (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Defamation is malicious falsehood. At worst this article might be malicious truth-hood. But as is currently stands it says as little about the conviction as it can without ignoring it entirely.Martinlc (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Legally speaking, defamation can also be committed by omitting important exculpatory information, so as to give a false impression. If anybody is inclined to doubt this, I can dig up legal references for you. But if you're going to dismiss that information as Original Research, you can save me the trouble. JerryRussell (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have demonstrated many times that you don't have any legal knowledge, so please stop claiming that you do. True statements, such as that a person was convicted somewhere of an offence, are not defamatory, and, anyway, this article does include Framton's point of view that the text messages that he sent saying that he was smuggling drugs were a joke. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the article most definitely did not present Frampton's view on these matters. It now does. MPS1992 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

IP86, I'm not asking anyone to take my word about legal matters. Most of what I'm saying can be verified at Wikipedia: see Mens rea and Corruption in Argentina # Judicial Integrity. As to the issue of libel by omission, see this discussion of a recent 4th circuit court decision: 1 and for more detailed info on Argentine court corruption see here: Drug Laws and Prisons in Argentina.

Disclaimer: (almost) everything I know about law, I learned at Wikipedia! If we're really insisting on keeping this article as-is, or even trying to fix it while keeping the basic information about the drug scam intact, I recommend we get some real legal advice from somebody at Wikimedia Foundation. The safest thing, if we want to keep out of trouble, is to completely delete this entire matter, as well as all logs & discussions. JerryRussell (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

There is a person adding slanderous and libelous information to a Wiki page that I created about someone who is one of my heroes. The person who is posting this slanderous and libelous content is named [redacted attempted outing], and he is making the changes from this IP: 70.98.32.74

We are literally going back and forth right now every minute or two and undoing each others changes.

[redacted attempted outing]

Please advise what I can do about this situation. Can you block this person's IP from being able to make changes to the page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredcocreation (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please could an admin redact the personal outing details above.Theroadislong (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That IP is also outed at Talk:Paul Stanford. From the page history, it looks like these two need a cool-down period. Bradv 23:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've redacted the attempted outing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Better look at the article history. Are those legal threats from sacredcocreation? -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. the apparent outing attempt remains in the edsums of the article history; as does what I think may be a legal threat. -Roxy the dog™ bark 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Attention @BU Rob13: Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I've looked through and I'm not seeing it, but maybe I'm missing something. Please email oversight with details. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. -Roxy the dog™ bark 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've had a good night's sleep. So, it would appear, have oversight. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorted. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There's an ongoing dispute at Shmuley Boteach over an issue which has attracted 2 accounts and an IP, the IP perhaps making legal threats. As they've all been adding either completely unsourced contentious material or changing sourced material, it's a problem even if they are right. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed some unusual material in an article about a Scottish politician, Stewart Stevenson. As I have tried to clean up the article today, my edits are being reverted without any adequate explanation by an editor with a username that suggests there are WP:COI issues. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced genealogical "stuff." Collect (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I came to his biography after viewing the cast list for HBO's upcoming "Big Little Lies." One line item jumped out at me - specifically, that he played a castrated character named "Cuck" in a 2012 film, "Playing for Keeps," and as a method actor elected to fully castrate himself in May 2010 in order to get into the role. This seemed ridiculously farfetched (wouldn't this have been in all of the entertainment news?), so I looked up the film. It was a romantic copy, Mr. Tupper's character was named Matt, and there is no indication that Matt was a castrated male. I also find no news articles or other content pointing to Mr. Tupper's castration, which makes me think that the line was added to his biography either maliciously or as a joke.

I removed this content as contentious, unreferenced and highly unlikely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Monitoring needed please on Park Geun-hye's high-profile and frequently edited BLP: facts being added basically seem right, but presented in a slanted way, and many of the sources being added are in Korean and thus difficult for many of us to read or assess their reliability. It should not be difficult to find English-language sources for the more significant developments: Noyster (talk), 14:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.140.79 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What about him? Meatsgains (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the United States

Steve Bannon

I removed this cat but it was replaced - please can we remove it again, it is a clear policy violation to include it - it clearly states at the cat that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States.. This category is for issues relating to Antisemitism in the United States. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic. Repeat: articles about individuals, groups, or media that are alleged to be antisemitic must not be placed in this category. Groups and individuals that fight against antisemitism can be placed here however. - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed in this edit,thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Bannon&curid=41631754&diff=750792671&oldid=750792274 - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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

SB 242 attracted a significant amount of controversy recently because, frankly, left-wing news media picked up the story and deliberately misconstrued the bill and the history behind why it was introduced in order to sell stories and demonize a right-wing senator.

First off, this is "breaking news".

Second, several users who have obvious bias based on the articles they usually edit are continuously re-adding content and reverting edits which runs the gamut from editorializing to slander. They're breaking multiple soapbox rules.

Finally, they are adding in factually incorrect information and citing tabloid news without properly attributing it in text as should always be done on a BLP.

I'm not saying the information needs to be removed, but it certainly needs to be qualified with mentions about who is saying it, especially if it's from a tabloid like the Austin Chronicle. In fact, the only criticisms of the bill so far seem to be coming from tabloids (left wing, obviously) and gay-rights lobbying organizations (Equality Texas).

I have no dog in the fight except that when I saw the trending story, I came to Wikipedia to look for more information, only to find the article verbatim repeating what these obviously extremely biased sources were saying. The editor who added the first content originally uncritically categorized SB242 as anti-LGBT because one tabloid source said so, even though even a cursory reading of the actual bill and the reasoning behind it, all of which was available before the section on it was added to wikipedia, makes it clear that this is not the case.

Furthermore, 3rd parties keep sweeping in, reverting, and directing me to the talk page, where no one is actually trying to reach consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8200:4830:48EA:B2C2:61D7:E54 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

new, PROMO article about a teenage entrepreneur in Hong Kong. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The uploaded image says "Own work".[30] The picture was taken while Jordan Fung Tsz Chun was giving a speech at Hong Kong Polytechnics University. It looks like the picture was taken by a professional photographer. It is remarkable the first edit by a new user is this. QuackGuru (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been reported that Eric Bolling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) might be hired by the Trump administration. Given the longstanding controversies about him allegedly saying racist stuff on Fox News (which he works for) (see this petition for example), it seems fair to expect a lot of BLP issues at this page in coming days. Eyes appreciated. Everymorning (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Realroberta is adding unreferenced negative information to this bio page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Material has been removed, and the user's been blocked by an admin. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The above article has been the subject of an edit war involving me and three other editors and was fully protected to allow discussion. However, neither editor has replied and I was also reccomended to bring up the matter here. The article had really serious issues with sourcing (relying on many unreliable sources like WIkipedia mirrors, IMDB, Youtube, etc). That, combined with overuse of citations, made me strongly doubt that the content conformed to our policy on reliable sources. Additionally, the article is not written from a neutral point of view and is written from a perspective of a fan who highly favors her. That is why I turned the article into a stub rather than discussing it first or letting it stay at the status quo ante. Since the protection is expiring soon and neither editors have replied on the talk page I suspect its best to bring up the matter here since the subject is a living person. It's also worth mentioning that all three accounts only have edits related to the subject of the article. Opencooper (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this version of the page was quite the mess, you're right. There are probably some sources worth saving/using in there, but it will be a lot of work to sift through and pare down... Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ravindra Nanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another vanity piece with lengthy lists of the subjects' publications. Any help would be great. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

How can you not have a biography of Larry Solov? As the owner of Breitbart he is single-handedly reporting and creating news within our political and national news agencies. One of the top informants of the right-wing section of our political party one would think that an active movement to have his biography on here would be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.223.105.208 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that a subject is notable for inclusion on WP you are more than welcome to submit a draft for submission yourself provided you have sufficient resources to cite such notability; or you may ask for an article to be created: [31]. That being said, if a subject is notable enough for inclusion on WP, someone will eventually create an article. My advice: give it time. Maineartists (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Please help keep an eye on this one and on Reddit - I just removed a bunch of stuff sourced to reddit threads/comments. No doubt the content will end up in the article but there aren't really any RS that can be used to verify it just yet. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated, biased edits (that also do not follow wikipedia guidelines) are being posted from various dummy accounts with a sole intention to cause reputational harm. This includes uncited commentary being presented as fact, and selectively posting negative material at the top of the page (rather than in its proper place in the "career" page chronological structure).

Disclosure: I am a business partner of the subject of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnystartup (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

More eyes needed on this article. Richard B. Spencer has been in the news a lot recently and hosted a conference where he shouted “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” and audience members gave nazi salutes. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/white-nationalist/ There are lots of issues with this article - should the location of his mother's pottery business be in the article? should a fight he got into on a ski-lift covered only by the dailybeast, rachel maddow and the Whitefish Pilot - a local newspaper for a town of 6,000 - be in there per WP:N? Lots of the sourcing seems to be primary - quotes from Spencer's own website, and websites with names like AntiFascist News, etc, etc. At any rate, this article needs more BLP editors. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You brought this up a a couple months ago. What's changed, exactly? Grayfell (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The ski fight wasn't there. The extensive quotes from pro- and anti-blogs weren't there. The doxxing of his parents wasn't there. And the Rachel Maddow source you wanted to include was removed from the article after discussion on talk page. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Can people keep an eye on Maria Chin Abdullah? I have never heard of this person and have no idea why she's suddenly become contentious, but the SPAs seem to have suddenly appeared en masse. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

You have Jimmy Orr's birthplace wrong. He was born in Seneca SC. not Alabama as stated. My source is Jimmy Orr, I date him. Carol Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC35:9DE0:BCB9:FB38:2D5B:AFAD (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Carol: I have now fixed this, as the only source the page has verifies your statement. Looks like someone may have built part of the page by copying items from somewhere else, and failed to adjust that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=38394786 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=37742523

These are duplicate pages. We should remove the second page. Babji2000 (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Case1. Please take a look at the article about Vladimir Plahotniuc (history!) and at these users contributions: AlbertPenfold and Wilkeborch Jonas. I strongly suspect these users are SPA's involved directly (from outside of Wikipedia) to the subject of the named article. The first user is someone who only tries to add defamatory content to that article; now he started an edit war with his subsections which violates NPOV, and maybe MOS, IMO. The second user is somehow affiliated with the subject of that article, and tries to put him in a good light, removing negative information about him, and introducing favorable material cited from affiliated sources (demonstrable). What do you think about current version of this article's TOC and subsections headers of the section "Controversy"?
• Case 2. An article creep done by user Rgvis in the article about Igor Dodon, see article history since 25 November 2016‎. Particularly, in this edit user Rgvis, with an apparently good edit summary, has removed much of content, but he has 2 fails: 1) he has removed completely "Biography" section, although it was decently referenced; and 2) has changed in infobox Dodon's PSRM membership from (2011–2016) to (2011–present), ignoring sources provided below. User Sigehelmus restored previous version of article, but Rgvis came again to remove that content. What do you think about this? --XXN, 10:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am Angela Workman. In a misguided attempt to create a Wikipedia page about myself (I'm a professional screenwriter, with a new film premiering soon), I and a team spent two months learning how to post a page, not realizing that we were supposed to let strangers do it instead. In the last few days, the page finally posted, but two editors edited it to such an extent, and added such a defamatory film review of one of my old films (on a very slim page, so it stands out) that I'm now, sadly, intent on having my entire page deleted, rather than showcasing such an insultingly glaring review. I ask for your consideration and generosity here. I'm a good person. I have a Holocaust film coming out, of which I'm very proud, and which has its own Wikipedia page The Zookeeper's Wife (film). I've worked professionally in the film business as a (noted) writer for twenty years. I do not deserve to have an editor post anything derogatory on my page. I'm asking again, please insure that they refrain from posting the New York Times review of 'Snow Flower and the Secret Fan' (there are plenty of wonderful reviews, of which I offered one, to no avail), or else delete the Angela Workman page entirely. I don't want to be ruined by Wikipedia, and just when this beautiful work comes out, which has meaning for a lot of people. Thank you. Angela Workman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You want wikipedia to remove a negative review because you dont like it? -Roxy the dog. bark 06:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect but do you really think one bad review from five years ago will ruin you? If it could, wouldn't it have done so already? If there are positive reviews for that film, feel free to add those sources too. It wouldn't be the first film to get a mixed reception. But anyway, bad reviews are no reason for deletion of an author's article. Lack of notability is. Cheers, Yintan  08:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that there is an AfD discussion on the article, however I believe that Beauty111 will need to confirm their identity in order for the request to be taken into account. Perhaps someone with more experience in that aspect could offer some guidance? Shritwod (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it doesn't really matter if Beauty111 really is Workman or not. The article won't be deleted because she (whoever she is) asked for it. It will be deleted (or not) according to Wikipedia guidelines. Yintan  09:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It took me a bit of finding, but the policy is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which does take into account the subject's wishes in marginal cases. That's maybe more of an issue for the AfD discussion, but in any case the subject needs to prove they are who they say they are, the process for this appears to be through contacting info-en-q -at- wikimedia.org to raise a ticket. Shritwod (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The article could use additional input from experienced editors, as to whether the article is compliant with BLP. In addition the "reception" section seems overly weighted toward related scandals. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: I've been keeping a close eye on the article. I agree the rape accusations take up a fair bit of space but I don't feel it's disproportionate. Can't make it much shorter without losing essential info, really. We'll have to see how this news plays out over the coming days. Same thing goes for the cause of death. Yintan  07:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Aside, could someone have a word with Gabuzomeuh? I'm getting very tired of undoing those edits and explaining the BLP guidelines to him/her. And I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Thanks, Yintan  09:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to underscore Yintan's comment above. Appreciate your vigilance, Yintan. It's a shame that it took a post on Jimbo's page for these issues to be addressed, but sometimes that's necessary. It's really not a Jimbo issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: Don't know why it was taken to Jimbo's Talk. Wasn't aware of that until I checked Gabuzomeuh's contributions. And you're right, it shouldn't have. Yintan  19:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Recently created, poorly written article. My attempt to redirect to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_and_Sasha_Obama (where the discussion is on-going whether content on Malia Obama should be broken out is on-going) has been reverted. Would appreciate more eyes on this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted to the redirect and protected. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding a proposed separate article at Talk:Family of Barack Obama#Split for Malia?. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been working to rewrite a BLP that previously had all sorts of COI and POV problems, Allen Meadors. I have left the fact that he now lives in Seven Lakes, North Carolina in the article, but it lacks a source. I have found this, which seems to be based on his voter record and which confirms that he leaves in Seven Lakes. Can I get opinions on this source? I think it's reliable, but I'm a bit worried that it reveals quite a lot of personal information about him (although it is easy enough to find via Google, so it's not like we're revealing anything new if we do use it). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.". I don't think that stating where this particular subject lives adds any value to the article at all and does seem like an invasion of privacy. Shritwod (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's actually an editor who was paid by the subject of the article who included the material on where he lives. I'd be happy for it to be excluded. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do. The problem with sites like this, besides the provenance and the excessive personal information, is that it's very unlikely that anyone can prove that it's the same person. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

After reading the article, I am not actually convinced that the subject even meets notability requirements. The financial allegations are perhaps the most notable aspect if true, else he seems to be just another career academic. But I note that it recently had an AfD discussion anyway.. Shritwod (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I only realised there had been an AfD after I'd started to work on the article. He's more of an administrator than an academic, and what I've been able to find of his published research doesn't seem to have made much impact, but I think that there's enough coverage of his departure from his post at University of Central Arkansas (they're more than allegations, and he pleaded guilty to a charge of violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act) for him to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A recently appointee by Trump, her article is filled with enough "citation needed" tags that it makes it look like she's a hack. The tags are right, but if anyone can source some of the claims (which are likely valid, just need 3rd party sources) that would be great. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed out - all the cite needed templates - the only thing that is really needed is the easy linked detail - that states - On November 25, 2016, McFarland was selected as President-elect Donald Trump's Deputy National Security Advisor - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some help with Herbert D.G. Maschner. The article was stable until a couple of days ago when a new editor replaced the content with a information about an ongoing sexual harassment dispute. Another new editor (apparently Maschner himself), then tried to blank the page, starting an edit war. I've restored the previous stable version and re-added most of the new material about the sexual harassment incident, but I'm not sure if the weight and wording is entirely appropriate. Are there any editors more experienced with contentious BLPs willing to look over it? Joe Roe (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: It does seem overly detailed. I'll do some work on it. Yintan  16:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Done. Have a look, see what you think. I'd say it's pretty fair now. Yintan  16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yintan: Yep, looks like a balanced summary of the situation as it stands to me, thanks for taking the time to do that. Joe Roe (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: By the way, that lawsuit is set for December. Something tells me it'll be useful to keep an eye on the article... Yintan  18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll imagine we'll end up changing it again when the dust settles. Joe Roe (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This needs cleanup; a bunch of IP addresses and others added a large quantity of insufficiently sourced entries. I've tried to clean up the article, but this needs more eyes and hands to help out. Neutrality^talk 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Alas - true of a great many such "list of people with ..." on Wikipedia, indeed. Collect (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have historically been a contributor/editing to wikipedia articles regarding Hajime Sorayama art related articles and other art / science related articles including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Sony AIBO and art legal areas of merit that strives foremost to adhere to wikipedia rules. I recall I started doing these important wikipedia enecyclopedia contributions since about circa 2006 to 2008 though it may be early as 2003. This to add vital historical and current details content based on researched fact. It appears the Hajime Sorayama article URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajime_Sorayama has come under a potential attack / graffiti style change / other change by new user series of deletion(s) of factual historical content of merit.

I noticed that the area of External Links has been tampered with/deleted of " sorayama.net Official Website born circa 1999" in the external links leaving only one younger official website behind that may cause a mess / cause misinformation "as is". The deletion(s) maybe started within the past year or so.

Also, I am uncertain if similar deletions unfavorably effecting vital factual events of merit can be traced as well over the past 3 years or so.

Note below are some few of many references and all are in context of the wayback machine archives; those sources outside wayback archives, actual published books, "real" news articles and wikipedia are researched to determine if objective/accurate to use as source material while galleries with active physical shows are excluded from wikipedia for obvious commercial reasons unless actual physical arts/media/books are provided for research review in an enclopedia manner.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/fashion/mens-style/at-pitti-uomo-angles-of-approach.html?_r=0
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://sorayama.net
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://sorayama.com
• http://sorayama.jp/news/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubwater (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Bubwater (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bubwater: So if I understand you correctly you are wondering if the removal of a link in the External Links section is a problem? I suggest to discuss this on the article's Talk page since there are three sites claiming to be the "official" Sorayama site: Sorayama.net, Sorayama.com and Sorayama.jp. The domains all appear to be registered to different persons. Art dealers, maybe? Perhaps there is somebody on the Talk page with more knowledge about this. (By the way, please sign your posts, thanks) Kind regards, Yintan  19:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Yintan for looking in on this and I will try put it on the talk page as you suggest using four tildas to sign as well. The removal / deletion / changes in the External Links area (that possibly occurred this month and in the recent past) is by some unknown mobile phone user who made this deletion and is historically and currently creating confusion where no confusion exists. To be clear there appear multiple Official Websites visible to public viewing (I have seen at least about 5 / maybe 6 sites with the youngest being the one remaining on this Sorayama related wikipedia page after the sudden removal of well established, to of most search engines/longest standing and comprehensive on wikipedia/internet being sorayama.net ) and each one of the three you mention here is valid more likely than not so they would be fine for the External Links but the problem remains that a possibly new mobile phone user has made unfavorable and inaccurate change . The longest standing Official Websites ongoing (unless owners of such website viably inform you/me/wikipedia otherwise) are sorayama.com, sorayama.net and a younger one sorayama.jp It appears potentially someone interested in having only the young Offical Website maybe made this change/removals that are unfavorable and inaccurate to history and ongoing events. Where the sorayama.net / sorayama.com / sorayama.jp Official Websites was removed/added/changed I can inform you that all 3 remain Official Website(s) until such time there is an official mutually agreed upon change by any/all itnerested parties ie owners of the assets/websites inform me/wikipedia in writing they no longer own or have changed their respective websites (as it stands there is no change on public records to the designation(s)/ownership(s) of these three Official Websites you noted). sorayama.net desires (I communicated with ownership) to be maintained in its place on External Links in a viable way that it is always depicted and not be subjected to haphazard changes/removals by unknown users with unknown motivations that wikipedia researchers may investigate. Is there a way that wikipedians/wikipedia watch/ restore / lock this External Links area giving with restoration for sorayama.net to be in its place and help maintain it? Bubwater (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Bubwater (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bubwater:Again, with all due respect, please take this to the article's Talk page. I see your point but this Noticeboard isn't the right place for it. Kind regards, Yintan  15:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we have some extra eyes over at LaMia Airlines Flight 2933 please? There is an issue with names of people that are not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article being added against consensus. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)