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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Paradigm shift

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rape

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)[reply]

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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Troy Southgate, pt 2

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On the above-referenced article, one editor who apparently gives credence to a fringe conspiracy theory[1][2] that Barack Obama is the illegitimate son of Frank Marshall Davis, has been edit warring[3][4][5][6] and templating my talk page[7] in their efforts to shoehorn this nonsense into the encyclopedia. The editor has even made[8] a composite graphic[9] to prove the point, and is beginning to add this racially-tinged[10] nonsense to other articles.[11] This goes on the stack of all the other theories about Obama, that he's a secret Muslim, not an American, supports terrorists, could not possibly have written his own book or gotten into Harvard without cheating, etc… and the source's other zinger, that Obama's mother was a porn star. Can we get a read on whether this is truly a BLP issue that can be summarily reverted, or just a regular issue that should go through content inclusion and consensus process? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]