Valentin Katasonov[edit]

• Valentin Katasonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I looked into this article because it referenced Michel Chossudovsky's "globalresearch.ca", calling it a "Canadian information resource", which is a bit of a stretch, as you'll see from the article on Chossudovsky.

The main issue seems to be, though, that the article relies heavily on affiliated sources, and the only mainstream sources (e.g. the US State Department report) barely rise above the level of namechecks.

It is clear that Katasonov is a conspiracy theorist and Russian state propaganda conduit, but it is not clear whether he is a notable one (in the Wikipedia sense - State clearly think he is), and I don't think it would be possible to tell without a good working knowledge of Russian since there are very few reliable English language sources that mention him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a good question. Should he have an article on Wikipedia if there are no independent RS naming him? The State Department document could be considered WP:BLPPRIMARY Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Serena Auñón-Chancellor[edit]

There have been a number of reverts to include Russian allegations that Serena Auñón-Chancellor damaged the ISS into her biography [1]. These reports have been mentioned uncritically in the content, referring to the alleged act as "the crime." While there have been reports of the allegations in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the Times at least has called it "wild speculation." I am open to suggestions on how/whether it should be mentioned, but I don't see it as compliant in the form that people keep putting back in, both in terms of its weight and its framing. This was the subject of a complaint that I declined at AN3, where editors were reverting under the BLP exemption, and other editors were ignoring it and asking for sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the question turns on whether she should be considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE as a NASA astronaut. If she is, then the controversy, which is well covered[2][3], should be mentioned but it should not be described as a crime but "alleged crime" or act since there is no conviction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Mention, since it's getting international (not just Russian accusations and US denials, but big name reliable sources in UK and Australia, even for a BLP that's sufficiently notable for us to mention) but rephrase. Specify that it's an accusation, don't say it's a crime. And honestly, shorten - the five sentences in that diff seem to be worth two sentences of content, at most three. --GRuban (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. The concern I had was in the phrasing and the undue emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment @Morbidthoughts.

@Acroterion: I see you are open to re-adding the content as long as it "Specifies that it's an accusation, don't say it's a crime." per M.Thoughts... Should I add it back or would you prefer to phrase it your way? Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm not that interested in editing the article, it's more a matter of respecting BLP (and the subject). Let's keep it short, per above. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez[edit]

Paul Frampton[edit]

The purpose of writing/editing is to raise concerns about the Wikipedia page/profile of Paul Frampton (PF) (the Profile).

There are elements of the Profile which should not form part of it, being a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), in accordance with the policies which are more particularly set out below to assist.

The objectionable content is that contained under the heading ‘Drug Smuggling Conviction’ (the Section). The concern is that it is not relevant to the Profile nor is it in in accordance with Wikipedia’s rules/policy surrounding BLPs.

There seems to have been previous comments on this subject with conflicting views. Those who believe that it should remain do so on the grounds that it is fact and reportage of the truth. Although that may (arguably) be correct in part, that appears to be the incorrect test to apply when determining if the Section should or can remain in the Profile as a BLP.

Wikipedia’s policy on BLPs (the Policy) states:

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.”

Those who may be interested in PF’s work are only solely and exclusively interested in his professional accomplishments as a physicist. The only reason to involve the Section is to be sensationalist.

This is further evidenced, for example, where the heading ‘Publications’ only refers to PF’s professional works and not to those relating to this minor incident in his life detailed in the Section. The correct reasoning for this is that the Section or the detail(s) of that event and therefore any publication(s) that followed bear(s) no relevance to a BLP.

The same entry would not be included in an encyclopaedia and there seems no reason why it should therefore exist on Wikipedia.

The Policy also states:

“Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”

The Profile/Section states that PF had been diagnosed with a serious mental condition at the time of those events which one would expect to only limit his ability to deal with the proceedings against him at that time.

It is unclear what, if any, arrangements were made by the authorities or the court to accommodate PF’s condition or to assist in anyway. There is the very real concern that PF faced clear and obvious prejudices in that respect from the outset.

On that basis there is cause to question if the conviction can only be considered unsafe given the above and therefore the Section’s inclusion.

In furtherance, it would seem that the Profile falls under the definition of ‘People who are relatively unknown’. Although PF is renowned and respected within his own field, it is highly unlikely that those outside of that extremely limited sector would know of him.

That is of course an important point since the Policy states:

“Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability…Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”

In accordance with the Policy and the definitions set out above, the Section should be removed leaving only the parts detailing PF’s professional achievements which go to the very heart of the reason the Profile exists.

It seems that the notability of PF has nothing to do with the events detailed within the Section but his professional accolades alone.

The Policy also places emphasis on material that may adversely affect a person’s reputation and that any such material needs to be treated with special care. Given the above points as to the unsafe nature of the conviction extreme caution must be exercised when considering if the Section has the ability to be included.

In the circumstances and for the reasons set out above, the Section should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The events related to the drug conviction absolutely affected his life and career (like, being fired and the subsequently lawsuit). And the sourcing, while mostly local, seems to be reliable, so there's no issue with this under BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, the cocaine stuff seems fine. Would likely be undue in the lede, as the self-sourced sentence about where he is "currently" (WP:RELTIME yuck) affiliated, is. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, going by the talk page, the article has a long history of editors with an apparent COI making requests like this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The subject is a very distinguished theoretical physicist. The material about his drug conviction is well sourced and neutrally written. Such a bizarre series of events needs at least the space given. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

Apologies, I am unsure how to respond to the comments. Thank you for the responses - I do still disagree with the reasoning as to why you believe it should remain. There appears to be no dispute that Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person. On that basis the content must be limited to that material relevant to the person's notability - that is the test to be applied, not if it is bizarre, interesting, well sourced or neutral.

Although it may be considered a notable event (arguable) it is not relevant to Frampton's notability. For example, if he did not have the professional accolades would the profile exist with the drug smuggling conviction alone? The answer surely has to be no since that is a job of a tabloid, which Wikipedia is not. I do not believe that Wikipedia is a record of individuals with convictions either.

By way of further example and in order to support the point above, there is no profile for Lucy Wright https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/03/pregnant-british-drug-mule-escape - a British lady who admitted to smuggling 6kgs of cocaine out of Argentina, interesting the High Court (England) refused to extradite her on the basis of her Human Rights despite the fact she had admitted to the serious offence. The point is there is no profile for her for the same (if not more serious) and admitted criminal activity, which is right - Wikipedia is not a news outlet. As a side, this does also cast doubt on the Argentina legal system and its compliance with Human Rights.

The point therefore is not down to the notability of the event (as such), how it is written or as to its sourcing but as a relatively unknown person is this relevant to his notability as a particle theorist - surely that has to be no. Its inclusion is not compatible or in compliance with the BLP Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If the only thing that could be discussed from quality sourcing related to Framptom was the drug-related crimes and litigation, we'd not have an article on him, most likely. Instead, Framptom, prior to anything with the drug stuff, was notable as an academic. That the drug litigation occurred and cost him his job at the end of the day builds on that. Now, if his crime was getting a speeding ticket and did not affect his career, of course we'd not even include that in his bio; that's trivial. --Masem (t) 19:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem is right - this subject looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, and as such is notable according to our guidelines; arguments that the article ought to be deleted on grounds of notability seem exceedingly unlikely to gain traction. We then pass onto the question of whether mention should be made of the conviction: given that it has been covered by multiple reliable sources, I can't think of any policy-based rationale for removing it; this information is squarely in the public domain, I don't see any BLP violation here. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)≤

This is a notable person who, unfortunately, was convicted of a drug offense and served time in prison. There is no way under the sun that neutrally written, well-referenced content about this episode should be removed from his biography. It is an essential part of his life story. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that the conviction lead to him being dismissed from UNC, however, as the profile notes that decision was incorrect as determined by a Court of Law. If you are saying that it is the firing which is relevant to his notability as a particle theorist then surely it should be limited to that episode/court case alone - perhaps entitled wrongful termination of employment or simply employment. However, given that the firing was wrong should it be included? I'm not sure how that adds to him as a particle theorist though especially as a relatively unknown person. Should we be including the reasons for why he left each employee or each event in his life which may have had an impact upon him personally and therefore his career? obviously not. I'm also not convinced that you can say that the firing had any relation upon his theories, which are ultimately the reason for the profile - that is something only Frampton can answer.

We have established that the drug conviction element would not exist by itself, therefore as a profile of a relatively unknown person "only material relevant to the person's notability" can be included. Frampton is not notable as a drug smuggler, for being fired from UNC or any other reason save for as a particle theorist - therefore his career and theories/publications are the only material relevant to that notability.

You say you can't see any policy based rationale for removing it, I have given you exactly that - the wording of the BLP Policy is undeniably clear especially as to a relatively unknown person. Perhaps you can explain exactly why that policy doesn't apply. This is a genuine question, I have stated that I am not questioning the neutrality or sourcing of the section, but simply as to its compliance with the policy in relation to a relatively unknown person - no-one has yet dealt with that explicit point. EightfoldWay

This court of law that you mention without references Paul, was it the same court of law that convicted you, or a different court of law, in a different country, and a different case? -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your first line is not clear, do you mean the court of law that references Paul or are you trying to infer that I am Paul? I assume you are attempting to say that I am Paul since you go on to say 'you', for the record and not that I believe I have to justify myself, I am not Paul if that is what you mean. I assume you mean the Court that ruled that UNC violated its own policies - it was a North Carolina Court (USA) as stated in the profile (and referenced). This seems to be the issue with this profile, any discussion concerning the inclusion of the drugs element runs off at a tangent. Ultimately my point is only to do with the BLP on a relatively unknown person - in its current form I can't see how it complies. To be blunt it doesn't really have anything to do with Frampton either but compliance with policies - isn't that the point of editors/editing to ensure compliance. If you look at the talk section of the profile other editors have suggested that it deserves no more than a passing mention if at all - I agree with part of that in that it cannot warrant a mention at all (I also note that editor wasn't accused of being Paul!).EightfoldWay — Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your whole reply is a masterpiece of obfuscation, so I'll try to rephrase. Paul was convicted by a court of law, and jailed as a drug smuggler, however inept. This is a fact that is not in dispute. He has not been pardoned by that court, or any other court in that jurisdiction. He is notable for a few reasons, sure, but most notable for the skirt chasing, carrying an empty suitcase on a plane into the country where he was convicted reason. Another court in a totally different country, which has no jurisdiction regarding the drug conviction has made some ruling that you are trying to claim somehow voids the conviction. You and Paul hold the same odd views on this, which have only been expressed here before by Paul himself, or his sockpuppets which is why I thought you are Paul, but I accept otherwise for wiki purposes, so you must understand why you are stretching my credibility just a little. You should accept that what is most notable about Paul is the drug smuggling, Bileptons and Festschrifts notwithstanding, and so that part of his biography will remain. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Not that this is wrong, but I would bring up that if Frampton wasn't a respected professor and had no other notable background at the time of these events, there likely wouldn't have been any coverage of it beyond a police blotter, and we wouldn't have had any article. But as Roxy has said, a lot of his notability for having a standalone article comes from the attention he got during this conviction, so it would be completely wrong not to have that in the article. The article otherwise does try to provide a neutral overview of Frampton's career and place the conviction and aftermath with due weight within it, rather than harp only on the conviction alone. --Masem (t) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah the Frampton rodeo again. Its about once a year we get this isnt it Roxy? So the key points are: He is a notable scientist. He is a notable scientist convicted of a significant crime. Said conviction cost him his job. Thats the end of it in terms of 'should the conviction be in the article' question. Everything subsequent to that has no bearing on if the material should be in the article or not. That there were irregularities in how he lost his job (and lest anyone think he would have stayed employed, no his employer would still have got rid of him. Just in a manner more fair to him) doesnt affect that this life event (drug smuggling conviction) significantly impacted on him. The current wording in the article (and this has been looked at multiple times by many editors) is as neutral as it can get. The issue which Framptom is well aware of (because it has been explained to him), is that even if we started putting in more post-conviction material related to the conviction, it just makes the conviction loom larger in the biography We cant actually add more material because a lot of it is either uncomplimentary, not-reliable, not-independant etc and would turn it effectively into an attack bio. And the problem with many scientists who potter along doing their (worthwhile) jobs, is that they dont get press unless something significant appears. So the obvious solution (which has been tried) is to minimise the conviction material to as neutral a wording as possible (done) and expand other areas where reliable sources exist (not done because there just isnt that much published and easily available). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a perfectly straight forward (and far from odd) view if you grasp the point I am trying to make. It is only about the policy's wording.

You are clearly misunderstanding what I have written - at no point have I said that the North Carolina decision voided the conviction, someone made the point that it was notable he was fired and that was the reason (or one of) for its inclusion, I was underlining the fact that was overturned and therefore not relevant. Again this is a complete red herring and not relevant to the point.

As I have repeated on multiple occasions it doesn't matter if it is true, neutral or well sourced, for the purpose of the policy that is the incorrect test to apply. It now appears that we are saying that the reason for the existence for Frampton's profile is the drug smuggling - since that is his notability, the particle theorist part is just a side/minor detail.

If you are saying he is notable for being a drug smuggler and that is the reason for the profile's existence then it should be deleted in its entirety as it would fall under news or a matter for a tabloid to deal with which goes against the BLP Policy. There certainly wouldn't be an entry as to his drug smuggling in an encyclopaedia (he is no Escobar). In addition, as a relatively unknown individual the material in the profile must be limited to that concerning the drugs (since you say his profession accolades are not enough for a profile) - that again would only leave news/tabloid material and therefore the profile should be deleted. Imagine how many profiles of drug smugglers would exist if we include drug smugglers with barely notable occupations.

I'll try and simplify the point - PF is a relatively unknown individual, I think we can agree on that point. If his profile exists because he is a particle theorist then the drugs stuff needs to come out under the BLP Policy as it should be limited to the relevant material as a particle theorist. If Frampton's profile exists because he is a drug smuggler then the material should be limited to the conviction/drug smuggling, which then falls foul of the BLP Policy and the profile should be deleted in its entirety. If you are saying he is notable for both then the professional part remains but the drugs element comes out as wikipedia is not a tabloid or news outlet.

The BLP Policy is clear: "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability".

To be fair Roxy's and a few others summary of the drug part only shows it to be tabloid material which is simply sensationalist. EightfoldWay

To OIDDDE, yes, an annual event. To Eightfoldway, the other give that made me think you are Paul is your username. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a talk page template to link to noticeboard discussions, so when an unfamiliar user sees one of these threads they can easily catch up on the history? That would be handy for perennial complaints. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the impasse here is that some of the terms used in WP:BLP are necessarily subjective. Is Frampton 'relatively unknown'? Is his conviction relevant to his notability? These are judgment calls, which reasonable people might disagree on: we are in the realm of editorial judgment. From a quick head count, I see at least seven experienced editors, including three site administrators, who conclude that there is no breach of policy; I see only one editor, the OP, who thinks that the inclusion of this material is a violation. There really is no point making the same arguments over and over: absent some new (and, frankly, ground-breaking) argument, this material is going to stay in the article. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To EightfoldWay, your logic is quite circular here, and it just keeps going 'round and 'round. This is not tabloid nonsense or trivia, and you can't just nitpick at little bits and pieces of policy like a lawyer would and expect to get anywhere. Wikipedia policy is better viewed as one giant equation, where info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. It's written in a way as to be firm but flexible, to account for different situations, and each policy modifies and augments every other policy. This satisfies it all with flying colors. This is not a minor traffic stop we're talking about here, which is what the policy you keep quoting is meant to dissuade. This is a major event in this person's life and career, and is exactly the kind of thing a biography should report on. He even wrote a book about it, for Christ's sake! So trying to sweep it under the rug as if it never happened has an extremely low probability of occurring. If it affects his chances at the Nobel Prize, then (whether criminal or just gullible) he only has himself to blame. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty far on the "protect BLP" side of of the spectrum, and even I see no issue with this. There's broad consensus in this thread that there are no WP:BLP concerns with the section as it stands. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Me too. One thing I keep thinking about the OP's last statement is, if the Nobel Prize for Physics Committee was just going to google his name and read only the Wikipedia article, then I would have just lost serious respect for them. Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• One thing that needs to be on the record is that the article Paul Frampton was created in 2006 -- six years before his arrest. The article had apparently been edited over 1,000 times before he was arrested. So I don't think the claim that "I am not sure that any particle theorist is going to be labelled as a well-known person, let alone Frampton. Therefore Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person" can be substantiated. It's not the case that some Wikipedian saw an article about his arrest in 2012 and decided to create an article about him only then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be circular but that is because no one has been able to actually explain why it is wrong, other than subjectivity or that is not how it is meant to be interpreted. If read literally it is clear and that is why there is no argument against it. If it is one giant equation where every point must be satisfied then by that definition it should be removed - it cannot satisfy the criteria of a relatively unknown individual, as the content must be linked to the notability i.e. as a particle theorist. Which policy alters the requirements as to a relatively unknown person?

The point that the profile was created prior to the arrest shows the reason for notability (particle theorist) and proves the point further. The fact that it has been edited 1,000 does not mean 1,000 people edited it (I note no time frame is given for those edits)- that could easily have been 2 or 3 people (over multiple years) and as such has no bearing on the point he is relatively unknown. As you state the article was created due to Frampton as a particle theorist and as his profile exists because he is a particle theorist then the drugs stuff needs to come out under the BLP Policy as it should be limited to the relevant material as a particle theorist. Your point, which I assume is designed to undermine what I have put, does quite the opposite. This is the problem I am finding, people want to oppose the position I am putting forward and of course have every right to do so, what I object to is the erroneous basis upon which they do - so yes multiple people disagree but that doesn't mean they do so correctly or on the basis of proper reasoning or understanding - inadvertently Metropolitan90 supports the point.[User:EightfoldWay|EightfoldWay] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh[edit]

there are some news links on the authors page that cite sources from unreliable and unaffiliated "news" sites. One example is in the 'Film' section of the page. it states 'On 7 February 2021, Politicalite reported that BBC Films had cancelled the film adaptation.[28]' and the cited link is for a website that doesn't meet requirements or has the links to the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.190.231 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What is preventing you from editing the page accordingly? El_C 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Politicalite is a far-right blog that doesn't have a history of fact-checking and accuracy. The source cited in Walsh's biography exclusively uses Walsh's Twitter posts as a source. If the posts existed, they have been deleted. Using a Twitter search (it seems I can't provide a URI because "twitter.com/search" is blacklisted), I can't find anything relevant, one way or another. I can't find any reliable source from 2021 mentioning anything about the film project. Hence I'm removing the content about cancellation.

You mention that this is "[o]ne example", but this is the only major issue I can find. The biography has some minor issues with unsourced statements and usage of primary sources, but nothing super awful. If you have specific complaints, please expand. Politrukki (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Politrukki, for doing the thing. El_C 10:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with BLP complaint about es Wikipedia (Spanish)[edit]

Hi. We have received a BLP complaint at Wikidata about two living people being recorded against the wrong mother at es Wikipedia. The complaint is at d:Wikidata:Project chat#I have the wrong mother and a false brother according to Wikipedia in item Maria Julia Bertotto. I am helping the complainant add correct details at Wikidata and have pointed her in the direction of es:Wikipedia:Biografías de personas vivas but she seems unsure on how to fix the error on the es wiki page, es:María Julia Bertotto. I don't know Spanish, so I am a little lost on where to direct her next. Are there any Spanish speakers watching this page that can help her or could you point me to the right page for her to report this issue on es:wiki? Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – An IP user has corrected the error at es wiki. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Scott Scarborough[edit]

I worked for Scott Scarborough and his two immediate predecessors as president of The University of Akron. I am acting on his behalf to request that this article be updated to show the full picture of his professional life or be deleted. In its current state it is incomplete, poorly sourced and reliant on numerous qualifiers to insert opinion as fact. A draft revision is given below, with the caveat that I am not an unbiased third party seeking to edit this entry; I am requesting an editorial review. Thank you.

Scott L. Scarborough (born Dec. 12, 1962) is an accountant, university professor and retired higher education administrator. His administrative career included stints at the University of Texas System (Audit Manager 1992-96); The University of Texas at Tyler (VP for Business Affairs 1996-2001); Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company (CEO 2001-03); DePaul University (Executive VP for Administration and Student Affairs 2003-07); University of Toledo (Senior VP for Finance and Administration for the University and Medical Center 2007-11, Executive Director of the University of Toledo Medical Center 2010-12, and Provost and Executive VP for Academic Affairs, 2012-14); and The University of Akron, where he was president from 2014 to 2016.

At the beginning of his appointment at The University of Akron, the university was heavily in debt and had reported several years of declining revenue and enrollment toward the end of his predecessor's 15-year-tenure, which had seen major, expensive expansions. Scarborough sought to overcome those financial problems through budget cuts, rebranding and new partnerships, but his decisions were met with substantial opposition, and he returned to teaching after only two years as president.

Scarborough currently teaches as a Professor of Practice at UA and owns the S|CPA Network with accounting offices in Stow (Akron) and Toledo, Ohio; and Austin and Houston, Texas. He has a BBA in accounting (The University of Texas-Austin, 1985), an MBA (UT-Tyler 1999), a MA in practical theology (Ohio Christian University, 2018), a master's in taxation (The University of Akron, 2020), and a Ph.D. in strategic management (UT-Arlington, 2003). He is a Certified Public Account in Ohio and Texas. PaulAHerold (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAHerold (talk • contribs)

Hi and thanks for bringing this here and declaring your conflict of interest in the matter. I mean no offense by this, so please take it as constructive criticism. What you've presented us here is a very nice resume, but does not read anything like an encyclopedic article should. Of course, our article doesn't read much like a biography either. What we have is basically all taken from a single source, and while I wasn't able to access the second source, I find no info in our article that isn't found in the first. The source looks very niche, but well-written and reads like a reliable source on the matter.

Here's the rub: by WP:General notability guidelines, that's typically not enough to confer notability, and I'm sure one could also argue WP:BLP1E, meaning we don't usually write articles about people who got news coverage for only a single event. Of course, we do have special notability provisions for certain classes of people (which I don't favor one bit) such as WP:NPROF specifically for professors, but i don't see in the sources anywhere that he is one.

My suggestion to you is this. While we don't just bow to the whims of our subjects, we sometimes give them special consideration when they come here requesting that their article be deleted, and this is especially true where we have a case of insufficient sourcing or BLP1E issues. I would suggest either you as his representative, or the subject himself post a request to delete this page at WP:Articles for deletion. It may carry more weight if the subject does it himself, especially after confirming their identity at WP:ORTS. Feel free to reference this discussion if you like. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to try and help make the article better, the best thing you can do is find us some WP:Reliable sources. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article yet but the president of a research university definitely passes WP:PROF (specifically, criterion 6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") and likely passes WP:GNG as well. So outright deletion is unlikely.

A note at WT:UNI or WT:EDUCATION might yield some volunteers to look at the article and see if it requires any cleanup. ElKevbo (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Thacker[edit]

Thacker is spreading misinformation about the COVID vaccines. He is preventing people from getting vaccinated by spreading misinformation. Yet, any attempts to update his page are immediately reverted without explanation by Alexbrn. Thacker, who is well-known among science journalists as anti-GMO and anti-vaccine, is inexplicably having his Wikipedia page whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.14.29 (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Paul D. Thacker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 73.254.14.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Believe there were genuine BLP issues with 73.254.14.29's contributions of Special:Diff/1062588536 and Special:Diff/1062589804 which is what 73.254.14.29 seems to be upset about being reverted. Up to this point while 73.254.14.29 has threatened Alexbrn with being taken to a noticeboard at Special:Diff/1064991165 I see no evidence of them being notified nor of a {{BLP noticeboard}} being placed at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(EC) IP, from what I see, you've been entirely in the wrong here and other editors have been trying to uphold our strict BLP policy. Frankly, if you keep at it, you should expect to be blocked.

First, if it's well known, it should not be hard for you to find WP:reliable secondary sources covering this. But when I look at your additions [21], what I see is mostly self published sources and other possibly unreliable sources. De Telegraaf is the only source there which looks to be reliable. I don't understand Dutch so I cannot evaluate the specific article but while we allow non English sources we do prefer English ones. And I wonder why the only reliable source you've presented for an American journalist who from what I can tell writes completely in English, is in Dutch. Especially when you claim it's "well-known".

Also even if our coverage of controversial aspects of Paul Thacker is to be expanded, it is very unlikely it should be in a "controversy" section heading which tend to be a very bad idea, especially in BLPs.

Finally, you've made an allegation of autobiographical editing [22], yet both of the editors reverting you are established editors who are clearly not Thacker. In other words, you surely have no evidence of this allegation. Please do not make such allegations without evidence in the future as it could be seen as a personal attack.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There's several reliable secondary sources that provide evidence. I've added them to the article. Please remember WP:BITE. ––FormalDude talk 09:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Please remember WP:BLP. If an editor does not provide reliable secondary sources then they are not allowed to add contentious material to our articles on living persons, no matter if these sources allegedly exist. policy is very clear on this. Any editor who does not accept this, is not welcome to edit BLPs. This means the fact these sources may exist does not excuse the IP completely failing to add them while adding the contentious material, and then falsely accusing editors of autobiographical editing even when they have been warned about NPA. BLP is far more important than the hurt feelings of an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the opposite of white washing? Brown smearing? I don't doubt there are spats and tirades against Paul Thacker in the blogotwittersphere, but self-published sources about other living people, be they negative or positive, are explicitly disallowed per WP:BLPSPS. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the one source that violates WP:BLPSPS. ––FormalDude talk 09:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the IP did not add only one self published source. They twice (although seemingly to the same page) added https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ which appears to be a blog by Steven Novella i.e. a self published source.

They also added https://www.keithkloor.com which as may be obvious from the name, appears to be the personal website and blog of Keith Kloor, again a self published source.

Another addition was https://www.science20.com/about . This seems to have multiple authors however it seems to be a collection of blogs than an actual reliable secondary source. It specifically boasts they have no editorial control

Create a place where world-class scientists write articles and discuss issues without being filtered by size or editorial limitations, where there are no political or cultural agendas, and the audience can read great science directly from the sources and maybe learn some new things.

In any case, the author of the particular article is the founder of the site [23]. So another one clearly an SPS.

One more link was to https://childrenshealthdefense.org/authors/paul-d-thacker/ which is a primary source. We always have to be careful about using primary sources to say much about what someone does, especially when it's more of a side thing. (I'm never happy if the only source for someone working at a university is the universities site, however at least this is often their main job.) In this particular case, it was worse than simply say Thacker was an author for them though, since it included unsources commentary on the organisation.

Finally there was one probably reliable source De Telegraaf, which I already mentioned in my first reply.

There may be other reliable sources. Anyone is welcome to bring them to the table and we can discuss what to include in the article. However no editor should be adding material with such shitty sources. And no editor should be defending someone who added material with such shitty sources, no matter how new the editor adding the material is.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• FormalDude (talk · contribs) has joined the party. I guess I have too. Animalparty (talk · contribs).

• There's no doubt Thacker is an interesting bio subject, but Wikipedia-suitable sceptical sources on his work are thin on the ground, for now anyway. That's the reality folks. The IP needs to understand there are good reasons for the BLP policy, and we must abide by it rather than try to WP:RGW. Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain the Wikipedia-suitable sources are mainly skeptical of his work. Did you review some of the sources I added? ––FormalDude talk 09:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: from what I saw, for some reason you said you were removing SPS while adding something sourced solely to Steven Novella's blog. Please remember there is no exception for experts when it comes to BLPs. Self published sources are not allowed except when they come under WP:ABOUTSELF which cannot apply when Steven Novella is talking about Paul Thacker. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Note that Steven Novella's blog is hosted by New England Skeptical Society [24]. However I see no indication the NESS has any meaningful editorial control over the blog noting that Novella is the president of the NESS. So Neurologica which is called a blog both in the site itself and by the NESS seems to be an SPS rather than a WP:NEWSBLOG, no matter where it is hosted. Looking at previous WP:RSN discussions I see no mention of any independent editorial control unlike for example, with Science-Based Medicine, simply mention of Novella's credentials which as I said are irrelevant when it comes to BLPs. (Remember that even Quackwatch should generally be treated as an SPS for anything written by Barrett.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  There is no "independent editorial control" at Science Based Medicine Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Science-Based_Medicine. There is no difference between Gorski here vs. here as far as editorial standards are concerned. Blog fights and twitter trolling. fiveby(zero) 14:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe. I was aware of that RSN discussion but intentionally never participated as I wasn't and am still not sure how to treat it. But clearly some people felt it did have editorially oversight so it's complicated. Regardless of whether they're right, my main point is I don't see how the same arguments could be made for Novella's blog where there's no indication of any sort of editorial oversight beyond legal requirements (which applies to many SPS) no matter that it's hosted by NESS, so it seems to clearly be out. SBM since it's disputed and I'm on the fence, I won't remove it or say it was obviously inappropriate for someone to add it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's also the consideration that the SBM piece is commenting on some publisher Word of Thacker's, not Thacker himself. The full protection of BLP does not extend to the work biographical subjects produce. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Since i don't see many editors linking to WP:POINT these days, i will go add anti-GMO muckraking crank Paul Thacker to the article. fiveby(zero) 19:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Considering it's an article on Thacker, I would have to strongly disagree. WP:BLPSPS doesn't say it's okay for self-published sources to be used if they're commenting on works. It says "as sources of material about a living person". If this isn't a source of material about a living person, then it doesn't belong in a biography of Thacker. If SBM is a SPS, it's either a violation of BLPSPS or of WP:Syn or both. Perhaps if this were an article on the article then the argument could be made but it isn't, indeed we don't have such a thing. Likewise if Thacker's article was being used in e.g. an article on the Pfizer vaccine or some other article which isn't about Thacker, then sure, a reasonable argument could be made it's sufficiently disconnected from Thacker that BLPSPS doesn't apply and so SBM's comments on Thacker's article could be used. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned up bit, including the BLPvio in the lead. Currently, however, the lead is an attack, rather than a summary of the article. That should probably be addressed sooner than later. The only time either GMOs or 5G are mentioned is in the lead, so it's clearly not summarizing anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick note that I mentioned this thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Vũ Hà Anh[edit]

The article for Vũ Hà Anh (a BLP) has received persistent unsourced contentious edits over the past four days, from two different IPs, and these edits have been reverted eight separate times now. These IPs have only ever been used to edit this article.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the protocol is here - an IP block? A warning? Something else? Or is the issue small enough that continued reverting is sufficient? Thanks for your help. AlexiG42 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The best thing for disruptive editing by various IPs is semiprotection. Thank you very much for sounding the alarm about these serious WP:BLP violations, AlexiG42. I've semi'd the article for three months. Another time in a similar situation, you can go straight to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Bishonen | tålk 14:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

(adding): It's a very bad article, though. I've taken it to ANI to ask for help from Vietnamese speakers with removing the promotion and the general gushing detail. Bishonen | tålk 01:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

Jason Drummond[edit]

This article is a mess of primary sourcing, outright dodgy sourcing (private investigation websites?) and unsupported claims, and to be honest it looks like a particular editor with some sort of agenda has been building up a hit piece. I tried to go through it just now, but I'm a bit pressed for time, plus I don't have access to The Telegraph which is one of the few reliable secondary sources used on the page - I can't see whether it supports the assertions about a prosecution that it's being used to support. Does anyone have time/inclination to give it a going over? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Lesley Ann Patten[edit]

Lesley Ann Patten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lesley Ann Patten has asked that this page be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocSloshter (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

As you were advised on your talk page, please see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE for instructions on how to get the article removed. It's not a blatant attack page, so it's unlikely to be speedily deleted out of hand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I find that a bit dubious. First, there's nothing remotely controversial or salacious in the article. The "Film making" section should be converted to a table with simple entries, as we're not here to advertise all of her minor productions. Second, the image of the subject that is used in the article was, according to the wiki commons entry, approved by her several years ago. ValarianB (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Kara Cooney[edit]

On article Kara Cooney, multiple editors including most recently User:Magnolia677 have been edit-warring to unbalance the article with large swathes of content describing a minor error she made in a new book. The content has all been sourced to partisan right-wing hit pieces from sources like Campus Reform and Fox News, and reports uncritically the Fox News perspective on the Kenosha unrest shooting (the point of the error) as if that perspective were objective fact. The direction of the partisanship is not the issue (when I first reverted the edits, I didn't read carefully enough and thought they were left-wing partisan hit pieces rather than right-wing ones), but my opinion is that this material is absolutely unsuitable for a BLP, that the fact that a book has an erratum is absolutely unremarkable (it would be more remarkable if any book needed zero corrections), and that the only purpose of these sources and this content here is to discredit political opponents. I semiprotected the article for a short term when the edits started coming from anonymous editors, but now they are coming from experienced editors who should know better. Additional opinions from editors familiar with BLP and additional help keeping this article neutral would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed this. The sourcing is pretty thin, and certainly not significant enough to stuff this into a BLP. There's a single local news story, Townhall, which has no consensus at RSP and is noted As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT. I also saw this Washington Examiner piece, which is also no consensus at RSP, noted There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline. There should really be more more coverage of something, in more reliable sources, if we want to include it in a BLP, especially if it's an entire section on its own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict...I was about to write:

Please note my edit summary when I added the text: "Criticism of Cooney's book was widely reported; no consensus against reliability of either source cited, per WP:RSP". David Eppstein then reverted the edit with the edit summary: "Undo. Still no. Fox is hyperpartisan these days, the text here uncritically repeats the partisan line on Rittenhouse, and townhall does not appear to be reliable enough for a BLP." Where is there a consensus at WP:RSP against Townhall or Fox News? This edit is not a WP:BLPBALANCE violation, and does not meet criteria of WP:SOAPBOX (which you previously used to delete this same edit by others). This has been widely reported in reliable sources, to the point that Cooney felt obliged to respond. If you don't personally like what a reliable sources says, then seek a consensus to have the source deprecated (or cope with the fact that other editors may not share your personal views).

But wait...wait...your reason for protecting the article? "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Temporary internet kerfuffle with bad sources, seems likely to have continued attempts by well-meaning editors at telling the world all about how she once made a mistake in describing something, based on unreliable social-media sources. See WP:SOAPBOX." What??? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have some RS discussing this that I can review? When I searched it was slim pickings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for looking at this again. In a short time I found:

• An ABC affiliate [25]
• MSN picked this up from from Mediaite
• KPRC in Houston
• looks reliable
• KFOX14 El Paso
• Fox News
• Townhall

Most important, she felt obliged to respond to the criticism. This invites some note about what she was responding to. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

MEAWW seems to be unreliable, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#Pinkvilla,_Meaww_&_Bollywood_Life, and Fox News There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. KPRC is The show is a mix of comedy, politics, pop culture and history that pokes fun at the absurdity of everyday life. Walton and Johnson can currently be heard on over a dozen stations around the Gulf Coast and beyond. I wouldn't use that for a BLP. The KFOX and the ABC affiliate are the same article by an employee of the Sinclair_Broadcast_Group who is currently in school [26], so I'd be hesitant to use that in a BLP as well. Her responding to the criticism on Twitter is hardly noteworthy, in my view. From where I'm sitting this looks to be pretty undue for inclusion in a BLP. I'd like to see significantly more sources, and generally of higher quality, to include this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• The best way to address this is to do the hard work to find high quality sources and proportionally add content describing the totality of Cooney's career, rather than lend disproportionate emphasis to a blip in the news (see WP:RECENTISM). A prose section summarizing her books would be expected to include the error as a single sentence at most (neither her Tweet response, nor churnalism that focuses mainly on Tweets need be included or cited). But until the article is more balanced with a historic view (per WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE), mention of the 'controversy' is undue and sticks out like a sore thumb. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Animalparty: said it perfectly. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Symone D. Sanders[edit]

We have what I think is clear SYNTH disparagement in this BLP with repeated insertion of a narrative that's not in the cited sources. Could we have some Admin eyes on it and consider a Discretionary Sanctions page restriction? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is pretty synthy, and changes the meaning of the source. The source cited says Symone Sanders, senior advisor and chief spokesperson for Harris, pushed back against the complaints and defended Flournoy, so it would be weird to link any of that with her leaving. We would need RS explicitly linking the two. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering the edits relate to me I would have appreciated a ping. The narrative that the office of the vice president is dysfunctional is not mine. It is confirmed by many reliable sources including Politico CNN and others. I will concede that synthesis is occurring but it is not a violation of WP:SYNTH because the synthesis is made by reliable sources and reports. We include things in articles that the subjects deny, and if the community would prefer that framing we can do that. Also, a do not appreciate the contribution stalking of SPECIFICO it is the wrong way to settle differences. Viktory02 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide sources linking the two. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Artur Pawlowski[edit]

• Artur Pawlowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Armduino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like a neutral reviewer to have a look at this user's recent edits to this article, the biography of a popular anti-vaccine advocate in western Canada. The user is new and has not edited much else, and my concern is that their edits to this article are adding information which can only be found in unreliable antivax blogs, using these sources to give undue weight to minor aspects of a recent court ruling, as well as insisting on restoring information about a non-notable person's criminal conviction (which is reliably sourced, just irrelevant). A few days ago I copyedited their contributions (PEIsquirrel is my alt) and they have mostly undone my revisions, restoring the content noted above.

Separately from the recent edits, I'm struggling with how to describe an odd aspect of a court order against Pawlowski requiring him to disclaim his own anti-science views when speaking publicly, without too closely paraphrasing sources, and would appreciate someone else taking a look at that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The stuff about some random coffee shop owner clearly doesn't belong. Nor does most or probably all the stuff about the subject's brother. I've removed it again and asked the editor to cut it out. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would add that for some reason Pawlowski seems to keep getting arrested with his brother. If they do nearly everything together and this is mentioned in reliable sources, it's possible this will be significant enough to mention. If so, it may be more reasonable to mention when he gets arrested with his brother, but it's still unlikely there will be any merit to mention the sentence his brother receives etc. The trouble is at the moment there's little context. His brother was mentioned randomly whenever they got arrested together etc. As his brother is apparently non notable, it's fairly problematic to keep mentioning his arrest without any context. It's no real different from if Pawlowski kept getting arrested with some other random person like a coffee shop owner or something. The article is on Artur Pawlowski and not other random people. Also I'm not entirely happy about some of the other stuff but I've tried to remove the worst of it. I didn't come across any blogs except 2 which may be news blogs but in any case don't seem to be related to COVID-19 (which they predate) or vaccines. Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Marland Yarde[edit]

Marland Yarde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It may be that this player may be the "England Rugby International aged 29" in current investigations by Greater Manchester Police. His page should therefore be protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyCPrivate (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks related to this. I've added the page to my watchlist, but it may need more eyes. There's been a bit of vandalism about this, but nothing too severe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says "cannot be named", yet they include the alleged name in the URL...how daft. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is semi'd now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Jacob[edit]

Trevor Jacob is being criticised on various media platforms for crashing a classic aircraft. A lot of editorial content is creeping into his Wikipedia article. WP:PROMOTION? If the Federal Aviation Administration determines that his engine failed, some people will have to eat crow. We need to watch this page and ensure it meets Wikipedia standards. JHowardGibson (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Owen Bennett[edit]

Roger Marshall (politician) and comments about Fauci[edit]

This is a two part NPOV content question. Recently Marshall questioned Fauci and asked questions about Fauci's potential financial conflicts of interest. Fauci said that his COI had been disclosed as a matter of record. Marshall claims his office was unable to find the material. Factcheck.org was used as a source to include the following in the article, "appearing unaware that federal law already requires that Fauci submit annual financial disclosure reports"[27]. A different reference in the same section included a statement from Marshall that said, "Marshall said his office had been unable to find the information." [28]. An edit was made that removed Marshall's statement that his office was unable to find the information and added Factcheck.org's speculative claim that Marshall was unaware that Fouci would have to provide this information.[29] My concern is two fold. First, since several sources said Fauci's disclosure information is available is it reasonable to say Marshall said his office was unable to find the information (per the second source this comment was made during a hearing). I think yes because it is important to note that there is a claim that this material was searched for. Second, is it reasonable to include a speculative claim from Factcheck.org that Marshall was "unaware" that this was a requirement of Fauci in wiki-voice? I think the second question should be no. First, this the opinion of the source rather than a fact. Second, the fact that Marshall asked about the information and said his office was unable to find it suggests he knew it should be available. Third, as a civil servant he likely had to go through a similar process himself and thus would have been generally aware. Looking for additional feedback here. Springee (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not majorly concerned with this being a BLP violation. Seems more of a content dispute. There's got to be more sources on this though, I know their spat made quite a splash in the media. I think the bottom line is, was it available before the Senator asked Fauci about it. If so, it's not reasonable to include the Senator's claim that they were unable to find it. Otherwise, it's probably safe to include both. And they should probably be attributed rather than in Wiki-voice. ––FormalDude talk 16:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This might be a crazy question, but in ten years will anyone give a shit about this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: People give a shit about the minute happenings of congressmen from over 200 years ago, I'm sure they're still care in ten years too. ––FormalDude talk 17:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Like SFR, I question the encyclopedic relevance of this incident, but it doesn't seem to be a BLP concern. Fauci's disclosures have been publicly available for his entire career, as is typical of NIH employees. Marshall appeared unaware of that. (We can't say whether or not he was aware, but he certainly appeared unaware). If you want to include the fact that Marshall blamed his staff for failing to turn up publicly available material, I guess that's fine? There's really no wiggle room in the sources, so I'm not sure why we're trying to invent some here. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that this level of detail about this type of event is encyclopedic content that will stand the test of time. Taking a quick look, it doesn't appear that anyone has added it to Fauci's article. Probably because it is WP:UNDUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Well it is possible for it to be undue for Fauci's article and due for Marshall's. And I think that's the case here. Marshall was the one who chose to use his time for questioning Fauci to ask a question like this. ––FormalDude talk 17:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with removing the whole paragraph talking about the interaction. That was my first thought but when it was restored I decided to make it about more than just Fauci getting caught on an open mike. Springee (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, the statement from Marshall was attributed to Marshall himself. The source didn't quote Marshall, only summarized his statements. I don't think we would need to say, "according to the X paper, Marshall said..." However, speculation that Marshall was unaware that Fauci was required to file such disclosures is a clear opinion that only one source had and conflicts with Marshall's claim that the his office tried to find the disclosure. Why would they look for the records if they were unaware that the records do/are supposed to exist? That said, this is new content and I wouldn't be oppose to simply removing the whole mess rather than trying to fix it. Springee (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: The sourcing is pretty bad for the entire paragraph, I'm fine removing it for now. I suspect there will be more attempts to add something about this to his article though, given the amount of coverage it's received. ––FormalDude talk 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean when you repeatedly refer to factcheck's description of Marshall appeared unaware that federal law already requires Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to submit an annual financial disclosure report — similar to members of Congress — and those reports are publicly available as speculative. Nothing about it seems speculative to me; it is stating as fact that this created the appearance that he was unaware of this. As long as we use similar phrasing it is not, at least, a BLP violation. --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

M. Elizabeth Magill[edit]

M. Elizabeth Magill It is a mistake to put possible future judicial as Barack Obama is no longer president, hence she has no possibilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escalonrodrigo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, clearly 2009 isn't 'the future' (though some may wish it was...) I've corrected the article. Thanks. 19:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure what remains should be there. Its speculation by a newspaper that went no where. Slywriter (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)[edit]

We have an article about Genie (feral child). She is referred to only by the pseudonym "Genie" throughout the article, but nevertheless there are three photographs of her in the article. If we are protecting her privacy (as we should) by not using her name, is it proper for us to include photographs of her anyway? I would think that we shouldn't do so. (The best counterargument I can think of is that these photos are probably at least 50 years old and so they would not make her recognizable today.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Even setting aside any BLP concerns, three non-free images seems excessive. Spicy (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think using the photos is fine, as they are widely published and, as you point out, over fifty years old. As for the non-free issues, I can see using the first two. I don't believe the third adds at all to the understanding of the article subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ovidio Guzmán López[edit]

• Ovidio Guzmán López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wonder if we could some page protection or additional watchers on this BLP. There has recently been a slew of unexplained unsourced additions by anonymous editors. Is this the right place to ask? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

GA-RT-22, WP:RFPP would be best place to request. Certainly a nuisance. If you have twinkle, its in the list of quick actions and will generate all the required information. Otherwise, just follow the steps at RFPP, mostly cut and paste.Slywriter (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark Swed[edit]

Please change to born 1947. I'm the source.

Thank you, Mark Swed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.16.52 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Unfortunately we get occasional impersonators looking to mess with us by claiming they're someone they're not and saying something needs to be changed. As a result we can't just take people's word for it when they ask for corrections like this. Sorry. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@47.156.16.52: However, if you find a reliable source to cite that says Mark Swed was born in 1947, the article can be changed accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Popp[edit]

The page for Jim Popp it is being policed by either Popp or a close associate to be something with no neutrality. Instead what remains after a flurry of uncited edits is full of unsourced personal information, editorialized to the detriment of other and the glorification of Popp. The history of the page has users Csibd10 and 24.224.114.89 taking these actions. An example is in the first sentence of the article where it states that Popp is: "a Canadian Football League icon, who has been recognized as one of the brightest minds in professional sports, known for his ability to both build expansion teams and rebuild established franchises into championship organizations." This whole article needs a lot of work, and also protection from whomever keeps turning into pro-Popp propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CestusHaberdasher (talk • contribs)

I understand your concerns, CestusHaberdasher. I've removed the worst of the puffery, as well as the unsourced personal information section, and tagged most of the sports career additions as needing sources. I also left messages on both editors' talk pages. I expect that most of the career information can be sourced, but I'm not interested in sports articles and don't want to spend the hours tracking down the refs for it. I'll keep it on my watchlist for awhile. Schazjmd (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'm going to go back and redo a few of the edits that I first did on January 8th and were reverted by 24.224.114.89 as some of those at least cleared up some of the citation issues. Thank you for your support. -CestusHaberdasher

Jeremy Mayfield[edit]

See this ANI regarding suspicious behavior regarding removal of negative information (drug testing controversy that led him being suspended by NASCAR, etc) regarding the driver by a pair of IPv4 and IPv6 address - WP:NASCAR also notified. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

IPs has since been blocked (and I restored the revision before the IPs began editing), but I still harbor some suspicion considering these IPs are from Hickory, NC and Mayfield used to race at Hickory Motor Speedway in his post-NASCAR years. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

David P. Bloom[edit]

David P. Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we include "Wall Street Whiz Kid" under the WP:CRIMEBIO info box for David P. Bloom?

Most reliable sources use the name "Wall Street Whiz Kid" in reference to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasBi (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is silly. 'Wall Street Wizz Kid' is newspaper-speak. A shorthand description for headlines. It is not an alias.

It should probably be noted here that ThomasBi, the creator of this biography, is personally acquainted with the subject,[30] and seems inordinately interested in filling it with every bit of trivia that could possibly be shoehorned in. This, after I had to repeatedly explain Wikipedia policy to ThomasBi, and remove unsourced allegations etc that with hindsight should probably have been revdel'ed. At this point, I'd have to suggest that a partial block might be the most appropriate course of action. While we should make some allowances for newcomers, learning the Wikipedia ropes on such an article is inadvisable at the best of times, and when it gives every appearance of being motivated by some sort of personal connection, even more so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP violation at Kakistocracy?[edit]

See [31]. It's an opinion piece by a Republican, and a search for Joe Biden and kakistocracy turns up[32][33] which don't seem to back the claim "The term was also later used to describe the Biden Administration.". Added first by an IP and then by a new account, presumably the IP. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The opinion is WP:UNDUE since it doesn't seem like it's from from a notable person. Just more hyperbole. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the article feel like a WP:DICDEF with a couple of examples tacked on? --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't just you. That is exactly what it is. With badly sourced/unsourced 'examples' tacked on for no better reason than partisan name-calling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Erdogan bit is supported by two tweets, an opinion piece in Deutsche Welle that doesn't mention Kakistocracy, and a Guardian article that also doesn't mention Kakistocracy. But that was written by one person who only made the one edit, and I've removed it. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

sylvia beach whitman[edit]

Hello. I am the subject of this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Beach_Whitman. My name is actually just "Sylvia Whitman." The "Beach" was inserted by others as an affectation; I do not use it myself, nor do I prefer it. Could you please remove the "Beach" from the name of this page? Again, it should just be "Sylvia Whitman." Thank you, thank you! - Sylvia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.202.98 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please write info-en-q@wikimedia.org to confirm that it is you that is making the request. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited in the article refer to her as Sylvia Beach Whitman, because her father named her after Sylvia Beach. The actual name is reflected in the lead sentence but are there any objections to moving the page to Sylvia Whitman? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No objections here, but I don't know if the subject is notable, on account of notability of the book store being WP:NOTINHERITED. I haven't nominated it for AfD yet, however, as I'm a bit tied up with other things and don't have the bandwidth for a legitimate WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Doing a Google News search reveals that plenty of RS refer to her as just Sylvia Whitman but all in the context of the bookstore. She probably does not have notability outside her father and the store. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Grace Randolph[edit]

I am submitting a request for review of Grace Randolph's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Randolph

Specifically the "Lady and the Tramp Racebending" section. It seems very unfair to me to include this accusation on her Wikipedia page when it's based on unproven hearsay and is poorly sourced, unable to cite an article from a single website of note or even semi-note.

This section is only able to cite a single article from an obscure website. ^[1] The sole basis for the article is a third party tweet that no longer exists because the twitter account was suspended, which reasonably calls the supposed accusations of that tweet into question. Furthermore, there is no proof - no video of Randolph, no tweets from Randolph, and again no article from a well known publication - that Randolph ever criticized Tessa Thompson's casting. The video from Randolph that the article does include has her specifically clarifying that she has no problem with Tessa Thompson's casting. Furthermore, the article also states that in the same video Randolph is also advocating for diverse representation re DC's Black Canary. As for Gail Simone's tweet, while she's a notable figure, I don't see how her tweet of a single question mark offers any proof or validation.

(There was one other article sourced previously ^[2], but it has the exact same problems re being an obscure website and using the same questionable deleted tweet as evidence. That article also stated that when visiting Randolph's YouTube channel himself, the reporter only saw her advocating for representation as well, in that case hoping for positive portrayal of an LGBT character in the upcoming Jungle Cruise.)

Randolph has also been very supportive of Halle Bailey as Ariel aka The Little Mermaid ^[3] and Leslie Grace as Batgirl ^[4].

I've tried to remove this myself but because I am an admitted fan of Randolph's, my edits have not been accepted. The editor who created Randolph's page, and who I've seen be invited to weigh in on discussions on her page before, thankfully agreed and also tried to remove the section, however it has been put back again by the editor who added the section in the first place.

So insight from other editors not previously involved would be greatly appreciated, thank you! ChromaticaCali (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing a google search[34] shows only the two sites mentioned. This section is UNDUE in that it doesn't satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE and I will remove it until consensus to readd is gained. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi[edit]

The article isn't factual at all. Having researched the matter fully, for starter, Idris is not a Prince of Libya. I tried editing the page to reflect reality and am doing my Master's in Libyan History and am very familiar with this topic. The page discusses someone alive and is incredibly dishonest, not least because it brushes over so much important information such as the 1995 court case, the Debrett's ruling, or the completely made-up things.

Some examples of uncited and inaccurate information returned to the page after my edits include:

"Prince Idris al-Senussi began working on leading the royal family and uniting Libya, as this role was passed onto him by his late father." (This is literally untrue)

"He has also been playing a diplomatic role to help balance the differences between Libya and Africa, the Arab World, Europe, the United States, Latin America and Asia." (What diplomatic role?)

"He returned to Libya on 23 December 2011 with his cousin, Prince Ahmed Zubair Al-Senussi." (He does not live in Libya)

Idris is supported by an Advisory Council (the Senussi royal family allows polygamy, which is "a factor that complicates all claims of royal legitimacy through descent")[2] that heads the Sanussiyyah movement which embraces the majority of Libyan tribes.

(Again, this is entirely untrue and has no citation to prove it)

Other parts of the page include clearly propagandistic information,

Other parts which I added, from reputable sources like such as the Globe and Mail were removed.

It would be helpful if an additional editor could:

1. Review and remove the unsourced material and remove it. As per Wikipedia Community standards, it contains "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". A few of the examples are above.

2. Restore my own corrections that were indeed properly sourced

Thanks Moonlight Sunshine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlightsunshine1994 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to find better sources than discussion boards like[35] and [36], or Wikipedia mirrors, like [37]. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines, especially for BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)