• Related discussion on AN, filed after this, concerning the block of BMK by Ymblanter. BMK (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NAC'd by NE Ent, who probably shouldn't have done so, since he participated in the discussion - but I'm not contesting it. BMK (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Politkovskaya‎‎, a critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered on October 7, 2006.

Many other birthdays and world events are connected with October 7, but the one thing that a number of editors want to make note of in the article on Politkovskaya is that October 7 is the birthday of Vladimir Putin. This is not a fact that is in dispute, the murder occurred on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. However, many people have speculated that there's some kind of connection between the murders and Putin's birthday, and an impressive list of sources has been accumulated which show, without any doubt, that that theory, those speculations, do indeed exist.

What hasn't been presented is anything beyond speculation and conspiracy theorizing. There are no sources presented which actually provide any evidence of a causal connection between the murder and Putin, or, even, a correlation between the murders and it being Putin's birthday. Absent such evidence, including in the article the information that the murder took place on Putin's birthday is not an innocent addition, it carries with it the clear implication of some sort of connection between Putin and the murder or the killers.

It seems to me that such an implication is a clear violation of the BLP policy, because although the speculation and conjecture is well-sourced, the obvious implication is not sourced at all: there is no evidence, as of yet, from a reliable source which purports to show that there is a relationship between Putin's birthday and the murder of one of his critics. If and when such information comes to light, then it can be reported on, but until that time, including mention of Putin's birthday in the article should be considered to be a BLP violation.

In a previous discussion about this issue @Swarm: said about it

I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article. [1]

Obviously, "thinly-veiled innuendo" shouldn't be in any Wikipedia arricle, let alone be connected to a living person, even Putin. BMK (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, as you say, a sizeable number of sources make a connection between the date of the murder and the birthday of Putin, there's no problem in our article noting this. Adhering to BLP requires that contentious material be well sourced; that is obviously the case here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. More than 30 reliable, high quality sources, including academic ones, which make the connection have been provided [2]. In effect, almost every source which discusses this topic mentions this fact. We cannot just pretend that sources don't say what they actually say. That is effectively misrepresenting the sources. This is not a BLP issue. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation. Wikipedia reflects what sources say. See VM above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to a BLP violation. The number of strong reliable and verifiable sources that make the connection between the murder and Putin's birthday is overwhelming. The first two pages of results from this Google search using the words "'Anna Politkovskaya' murdered Putin's birthday" turn up sources including:

1. The New York Times ("And then there was the fact that Politkovskaya was killed on Oct. 7, the birthday of President Vladimir Putin of Russia.")
2. The Independent ("The most obvious led to the Kremlin, if not to President Putin himself; that 7 October is his birthday fuelled speculation about someone perhaps offering a macabre present.")
3. Daily Mail ("Politkovskaya, an investigative reporter who uncovered state corruption and rights abuses, especially in Chechnya, died at the age of 48 on October 7, 2006, President Vladimir Putin's 54th birthday.")
4. Reuters ("Politkovskaya, 48, was shot twice in the chest, once in the shoulder and once in the head as she returned to her Moscow home in broad daylight on October 7, 2006. The fifth anniversary of her death on Friday coincides with Putin's 59th birthday.")
5. The New Yorker ("Anna Politkovskaya was murdered as she came home with some groceries on a Saturday afternoon, October 7, 2006, Vladimir Putin’s birthday.")
6. The Guardian ("For many, the fact that Politkovskaya was assassinated on Putin's birthday, and two days after Kadyrov's 30th birthday celebrations, raised suspicions that a henchman of one or both had served up the contract hit as an unasked-for present.")
7. The Economist ("It may be a chilling coincidence that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, but her friends and supporters are in little doubt that her dogged, gloomy reporting of the sinister turn Russia has taken under what she called his “bloody” leadership was what led to her body being dumped in the lift of her Moscow apartment block.")
8. The KGB's Poison Factory ("The next signature murder was on 7 October 2006 when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin's birthday.")
9. Transformations in Central Europe between 1989 and 2012 ("On the day of the second Katyn we may also recall the death of Anna Politkovskaya, “coincidentally” murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, October 7, 2006.")

Not one of these authors provides proof of a causal connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin's birthday; but they do report the connection, and it should be included in the article. The evidence demanded by BMK would be needed in a court of law to charge and try Mr. Putin for the murder, but the sources reporting the connection -- in the article and available elsewhere -- certainly meet the Wikipedia standard, despite the specious BLP claims. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should any BLP use any correlation of dates to imply in any way any causal connection between the events? Not if WP:BLP applies - making claims which might make readers feel in any way that a connection exists or might exist which has not been clearly shown to exist by reliable sources is clearly improper. Collect (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, notable author releases a book highly critical of Putin, and is murdered by people unknown on Putins birthday. Even if the two events are actually entirely coincidence (bungled mugging) the connection exists and has been reported on by reliable sources. The sources differ on the level of connection (ranging from conspiracy theories to plausible vigilante justice etc) but it has been clearly shown to exist by sources that would qualify as reliable for wikipedia's purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is supposed to be a rhetorical question by Collect but let me answer it in good faith. No, not ANY correlation of dates should be used in that way. SOME correlations of dates can be used in that way, in accordance with BLP, IF this correlation is extensively noted in reliable sources. I believe you're Affirming the consequent. Volunteer Marek  20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The particular edit in question does not imply any actual/casual connection. However, a number of quoted sources do just that. For example,

1. according to a book by Edward Jay Epstein, "Who really gave the orders and paid to have Politkovskaya assassinated on Putin’s birthday? The theory of the prosecution is that the contract to assassinate Politkovskaya ultimately came from the leaders of the Russian-backed regime in Chechnya. A second theory is that Putin’s enemies abroad paid the killers … to undermine Putin. Finally, there is a theory that Putin himself ordered the hit to intimidate journalists.".
2. according to a book by Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, "Those who killed Politkovskaya could have done the job on October 6 or October 8. But they knew that Putin would be pleased by a gift from them on his birthday. Apparently the gift did please the recipient. On March 2, 2007, Ramzan Kadyrov became the president of the Chechen Republic.".
3. according to a book by Boris Volodarsky "The next signature murder was on 7 October when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin birthday. They certainly could not afford another method – the whole effect would be lost should she die in a car accident or of a heart attack. It was all self-protection, of course, as the lady had slapped Putin in the face by publishing her book Putin's Russia in the West".

Should these claims of actual connection be included in the page? This is a different question.My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your examples - the first simply enumerates "theories". The second, alas, makes a specific implication that Kadryov was involved - which fails WP:BLP for sure. The third you give has an implication that "they" were specifically acting on behalf of Putin - which also fails the strictures of WP:BLP. Only the first might be usable at all -- though listing three contradictory theories might be confusing to readers. Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how non-Wikipedia sources can "fail" BLP. If a source says something, the source says something. What matters is whether it's reliable. Anyway, here the main point of dispute is whether it can be noted that the murder occurred on Putin's birthday. And pretty much every source on the topic states this. Volunteer Marek  21:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every source tells about this fact and implies or tells explicitly that some connection actually exists. This must be included simply per WP:NPOV, and this is not a BLP violation. However, what exactly connection was suggested in sources is another matter. This should be discussed separately, on the article talk page, to identify what "majority" and "minority" views exist about this. The quotations above are merely examples of conclusions about this in several books that qualify as RS. Our business is to simply summarize what majority of reliable sources on the subject tell. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the date of the murder was the same as Putin's Birthday, and that folks have taken note of that fact, is supported by reliable sources, and is therefore not a BLP violation. I'd suggest this portion of the disputed edit be reinserted: "Many sources have noted that she was killed on Vladimir Putin's birthday although these do not necessarily explicitly state the significance of this fact.^[1]" This is neutral enough to inform the reader without undue speculation by any given single author. NE Ent 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source isn't viewable, and it utterly contradicts "although these do not necessarily explicitly state the significance of this fact". Check Amazon's Look Inside and search for the word birthday. It's a non-viewable source chock full of the most extreme inflammatory libel and a page range ("479-452") that is literally impossible. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source explicitly states the second part of your proposed sentence, it's needless editorializing. We don't need to hold our readers' hands and remind them that correlation is not causation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viewability is not required for sources, so that's not a helpful observation; nonetheless Volunteer Marek has posted many sources, so use another one if desired. If the suggest edit isn't ideal why not propose something else? We got here (full protected page, AN thread, BLPN) due to binary, rather the compromise / collegial, editing. NE Ent 02:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase made famous by All the President's Men is "Follow the money", meaning "Who stands to profit?", or in the Latin adage "Cui bono?". In this instance we should ask, as no one has been asking: "Who stands to benefit from adding this information to the article?" It is not by its nature neutral or innocent information -- what we would call WP:NPOV -- it is information which serves the purposes of one group of people only: the opponents of Vladimir Putin. The only reason that I can see for including Putin's birthday in the article it is to imply a connection between Putin and the murder, and thereby to tar Putin, without actually having proven any relationship.

This means that the information not only violates the BLP policy, it violates NPOV -- not to mention WP:SYNTHESIS (drawing conclusions from the juxtaposition of information that is not explicitly stated in the information). It also explains why the editors who have been so actively promoting it -- who, I believe, would make no bones about being opponents of Putin -- are pushing so very hard to include the information in the article, because it serves their POV purposes, and not a NPOV encyclopedic purpose.

The advocating editors, and some other commenters here and in the companion thread on AN, seem disinclined or unable to see the difference between a source which reports on admittedly existing speculation and theorizing, and a source which reports on actual, verifiable connections. They have a surfeit of the former, but none at all of the latter.

We are not a news source, we cannot fall back on the shibboleth used by the mass media news outlets: "We have to report on it because it's out there, it's being talked about." We are an encyclopedia, and must be held to a much higher standard than that. Including this information in the article does not do that, it has us rolling in the pigsty with the worst of the scandal sheets, not reporting on verifiable facts about living persons. BMK (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, you made a promise to step away from the article as a condition for you unblock (after you made like 8 reverts in one hour). Please abide by that promise. The fact that you are now defending your actions by making personal attacks suggests that you haven't learned anything, that you're here to do WP:BATTLEGROUND and that perhaps you should be re-blocked. Also your logic is a bit off. Volunteer Marek  16:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a review of my talk page will show, I made no such promise. My unblock condition was to stop reverting the article. I suggested that I walk away from the situation entirely, but the unblocking admin made a request that I not do so, and post about it here. BMK (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the attached articles are based on supposition and not first hand evidence (which is obviously very hard to get) a separate heading in the article detailing some of these, using explicit language to ensure the reader knows this would not be any violation of BLP as this is not a BLP just a Bio, if it fails other wiki rules and guidelines that is a separate matter. Any edit war editors that repeatedly violate the 3rr rule and hide behind a self interpretation of the BLP rules when they do not apply, should be reprimanded. I am not advocating banning anyone or locking any article, but certainly a reminder of what wiki is, and how this collaborative project should work would be in order, plus a final warning as this should not be tolerated again in any shape or form.The Original Filfi (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by the supporting comments in this and the companion thread, my interpretation as not a "self-interpretation", it is a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy. Also, the BLP violation was not in regard to Anna P., the subject of the article, but in regard to Vladimir Putin. BLP-violating material is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia, no matter who it is about. BMK (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of the sort has been shown here or in any "supporting comments". You are making a false assertion. You really need to step away from the dead horse. Like you promised you would. Volunteer Marek  16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say, since so many sources mention the fact, that one sentence which merely reads "The date was Putin's birthday." would be appropriate after the sentence which mentions what day she was murdered. But that's it. None of the more egregious articles or books should be used to cite (i.e., not The Corporation or any other source which makes such sweeping claims), but one or more of the more reliable and conservative sources (NYT, etc.). No quotations should appear in the citation. Also, this fact should not be reiterated in the lede. There is no part of BLP which specifically prohibits mentioning incontrovertible statements of fact which are noted in a variety of reliable sources. As long as we don't editorialize or use hit pieces like The Corporation as the source, I see no problem in reflecting what the majority of reliable sources report. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can not dismiss any RS (books by academics) only because you think they are making "sweeping claims". Yes, sure, some sources are better than others. Best sources are usually not newspapers, but books by academics or other experts, specifically on the subject under discussion. In this regard, best sources are the books that included chapters on political murders in Russia. Such are books by Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky and Volodarsky. If you can suggest other books by academics on the same subject, that's fine, let's use them too. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote. I am not "dismissing" any sources; I am saying don't use certain of them as a citation for the fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday. Use that book as a citation for the specific additional claims/theories/hypotheses/correlations that book makes, but use a neutral major independent journalistic source such as the New York Times for the single observable fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To plagiarize BMK, "the only reason that I can see for including Putin's birthday in the article" is that it reflects coverage in numerous high-end reliable sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sources which do not provide verifiable evidence of the speculated-upon connection, only evidence of the existence of the speculation and theorizing. That's not sufficient to overcome the additional burden placed on the material by BLP policy. They say sometimes in American coutrooms that such-and-such evidence is "not presented for the truth of the matter" but for other legitimate reasons, well, unfortunately for those who want to insert this material, BLP requires us to present information only for the truth of the matter, not for other purposes. BMK (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "speculated-upon connection". You are making up rules as you go along, pulling them out of your ass and engaging in your own personal original research. You're also being WP:TENDENTIOUS by this point, after you got blocked and after you got unblocked for promising to leave this matter alone.  Volunteer Marek  17:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot see this factoid related to WP:BLP. It is quite good sourced to high-quality reliable sources. Google search for "Politkovskaya Putin's birthday" brings 16K hits in English and 110K hits in Russian. Among the hits are The Guardian, Reuters, Russia Today, RFERL,NewsRu - I just looked on the first pages of each search. BTW, I remember then WP:BLP was introduced, its purpose was to protect "minor celebrities", who are notable in some aspects (e.g. because of their publications) and whose private life (or significant portions of it) is private. Putin is certainly not a "minor celebrity", there is no need to protect his private life. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's disappointing that this article is still protected... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's a pretty clear consensus here and on the article's page that this is not a BLP violation. The fact that the article was protected by an involved admin who was also the one who unblocked BMK and who protected their own preferred version doesn't exactly encourage confidence either. Volunteer Marek  17:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I have started an RfC on this issue on the article talk page: [3]. Consensus can be determined there via closure by an uninvolved admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A local consensus cannot override BLP policy, so the proper place for this to be discussed is here. BMK (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having posted about it here, any consensus via the RfC will not be "local". But bless your heart for your concern. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, well okay then. Here the consensus is pretty much for inclusion. Volunteer Marek  22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true. I haven't counted noses, but, of course, that's not how consensus is determined, and I hardly think that either you or I are in a position to determine strength of argument, considering our pretty entrenched respective viewpoints. I'd be willing to go by the determination of consensus by an admin who has not yet acted in this issue, based on this discussion, if the discussion were given the time to develop that's normal for an RfC, if it were listed in the central directory of RfC discussions, and if the RfC on the talk page was shut down -- would you and the other advocates agree to that? Would Nomoskedasticity? BMK (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll go with the determination of consensus by an admin who closes the RfC on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't follow the consensus where ever the RfC was held, I simply meant that there are steps that can be pursued beyond an RfC, and I would be less likely to consider taking them if the RfC were held here rather than on the article talk page. BMK (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NB: There exists a full article on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: Today BMK removed all mention of Putin's birthday from that article (Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. BMK got blocked for edit warring like crazy on this article and only got unblocked after they promised to step away from this article. So what do they do? Go start an edit war on the most closely related article possible. Volunteer Marek  15:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "start an edit war" is interesting, to say the least, since I made a single revert to the "Assassination of Anna P" article (two edits, technically, but back-to-back edits are considered to be one revert for the purposes of determining 3RR, you've been here long enough to know that). And just a reminder: the condition of my unblock was that I not make any reverts "at least not for now" (in the words of the unblocking admin) to the "Anna P" article, a condition I have upheld, and will continue to uphold. I was not placed under a topic ban of any kind concerning the subject matter itself, and was, in fact, encouraged to pursue the BLP issue by the admin. Your continuing attempts to imply otherwise, or to shame me away, are becoming tendentious. BMK (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a "single revert" which is exactly the same edit as the EIGHT reverts you made in less than 24 hours which led to your block. Please stop insulting our intelligence. You were edit warring.

And seriously? You're going to Wikilawyer the fact that you "only" promised to step away from the Anna Politkovskaya article but made no such promise in regard to the Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya article? How stupid do you think we are? So you make the exact revert in that one. Do you really think that people here are too dim to see how bad faithed such actions are?  Volunteer Marek  16:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to adhere to the conditions of my unblock, yes, as a good Wikipedian should. I am not going to adjust my behavior for your preference and convenience, or your wish of what my unblock conditions were, no. I am completely certain that if I do anything that the unblocking admin considers to be beyond the bounds of what was intended, they will let me know, and you are free to contact them and complain if you are convinced that my actions are in "bad faith." If you that my stance is "Wikilawyering", then so be it. I'd simply say it's yet another Wikipedia concept that you have a faulty understanding of. BMK (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words "yes I'm acting in bad faith, I can do what I want, I will start edit wars on any damn page I please". Nice to know. Volunteer Marek  21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not my "wish". It's just that I'm pretty sure the conditions of your unblock were NOT "go forth and start new edit wars on related articles". We can ask Drmies for clarification if that's what he meant when he told you to step away. Volunteer Marek  21:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the bottom line: you obviously feel that I've transgressed against the unblock conditions that were imposed on me, so I suggest that you go to the blocking admin, lay out your argument, and ask them to warn or reblock me. If the unblocking admin declines to do that, take it to another admin and ask them to do it. If that admin declines, take it to AN/I and ask the community to sanction me for not following the unblock conditions. If all that fails, then please drop the matter. While you are pursuing all these possible remedies, I'd appreciate it if you'd shut up about it, because it's not relevant to the discussion of whether the material in question is a BLP violation or not, which is the subject of this thread. BMK (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query does this edit [4] which specifically uses this quote:

According to author, "The next signature murder was on 7 October when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin birthday. They certainly could not afford another method – the whole effect would be lost should she die in a car accident or of a heart attack. It was all self-protection, of course, as the lady had slapped Putin in the face by publishing her book Putin's Russia in the West"

imply in any way that specific living persons ("they") were the ones who ordered her death because of an affront to Putin (also a specific living person as far as I know)? This has now been repeatedly added to the assassination article, but that does not make it immune to WP:BLP regarding living persons named or implied to have been involved in the killing. Collect (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This quotation is not the original question raised here. Here is page in the book this quotation came from. This is book "The KGB's Poison Factory" by Boris Volodarsky which qualifies as RS. In context of the book, "they" means "KGB/FSB people". Does this quotation represents a "majority" [of sources] view on the subject? Should this be included in the text of the page and how exactly? Is it a BLP violation? All these questions must be discussed on corresponding article talk page and decided by WP:Consensus if anyone is really interested. So far, no one discussed anything at the appropriate talk page. This is not the place. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now responded here. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Per WP:RFC one of the means to end a RFC is to move the discussion to another dispute resolution forum. BLPN would seem to be a dispute resolution forum. There doesn't seem to be anything inappropriate about moving it here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the right place for it -- it is then in the archives for that article talk page and is more easily found by those seeking to reference earlier discussions. Notification here about the existence of the RfC there is entirely sufficient. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was created a day and a half after this BLP report, so it cannot be "moved" here as this discussion was already over-lengthy and over-wordy before the RfC even started (unless someone wants to wholesale move the entire existing thread here, which would divorce it from the article in question). I feel the admin closing the RfC should be notified of this BLPN thread (if it isn't linked prominently there), but they are two different discussions I think, and since this one is less formal and there is no !voting, the formal poll is helpful to determine site-wide consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Mabelina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have added the category "British monarchists" to a significant number of articles, e.g. George Osborne. I see nothing on that article that would lead us to add that category, and I wonder about the basis for adding it to the range of articles Mabelina has edited recently. Even so, I'd rather not revert them all unilaterally; perhaps others will have thoughts as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I thank you Nomoskedasticity for this approach to matters, unlike those with Bocaj12, whereas you could have approached me directly to seek clarification. It so happens that George Osborne is very much pro-monarchy; it is not immediately clear to me why you should mention (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) in your first message, unless your ulterior motive (not explicitly stated) is of a (misconceived) political nature and that you are agitating for support to have me blocked without further recourse? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. a cursory look at your recent edits reveal ongoing discursions about Jeremy Corbyn & his unprecedented handling of non-appointment as a PC and a range of other comments (which don't appear to me at least as being politically neutral), so given all that why did you choose to post me on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than approaching me initially? Many thanks in advance for your co-operation and looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this discussion may possibly belong on ANI rather than here. (Mabelina has been called up on ANI several times, and is possibly due a topic ban or possibly a CIR consideration.) Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection; I thought to address the content issue first and I'm not all that familiar with the editor's conduct issues. But I imagine you're right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be rallying support for your own purposes, rather than addressing any valid concerns (which I can come to if allowed) with me. M Mabelina (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what is a CIR by the way?
PPS. pls note that my full response to the above disappeared by apparent edit conflict - I shall post it again shortly when poss. Many thanks

Mabelina, Categories need to be explicitly supported and cited in any article they are added to. You need to go back and remove all categories you added that did not meet that qualification (yes, you need to actually check each article to see if the article states and cites the indication you are adding). Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: - thanks yours & attending to the matter accordingly; M Mabelina (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC) qv. User talk:Softlavender.[reply]

What is the status, if any, of removal of this category from the affected articles? Do you need some help? Please let me know, I am happy to help. If you have decided to keep it in some articles, I am concerned that we are using a category without references. Although it is the purpose of an encyclopedia to categorize information, in a biography it's a label of sorts? Comments? 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will start removing the articles from this category. Wow, ton of work, she tagged all sorts of articles. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of these articles actually state with references these people are British Monarchists, so this category is ok. Still have to remove all the articles which lack the cite along with the subcategories. Wow, gonna be a long night ... 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with your deletions, although it doesn't mean to say that any of these are not British monarchists. I just wonder why such a category was introduced when so many more relevant ones could be? Anyhow, not worth wasting time on this - but suffice to say that British monarchists equals some type of extremist or radical in everyday parlance, and does not warrant a special category under Wiki unless there is some reason unbeknown to me? Thanks & your proposal - unopposed. M Mabelina (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have a content-related issue regarding the Wikipedia Biography article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has come up at least twice in BLP notice board. Yet, there is a line repeatedly being removed and added back that mentions three papers by the subject that have been questioned by the journals where they were published. Challenged papers are a common occurrence in science and, in regards to the papers in question, no definite action has been taken by the journals. Furthermore, nobody has pointed to a serious breach of ethics in the research practices of Ariel Fernandez. In our opinion, the paragraph is not adding meaningful content to Wikipedia, while some Wikipedia contributors have referred to it as potentially libelous given the lack of balance of the article itself. Please advice. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

The recent discussion on the matter focused on the notion that there wasn't sufficient secondary coverage of the matter. Well, now the Chronicle of Higher Education has published an article about it: [5]. Apart from that: there's a long history of Ariel Fernandez editing this article (e.g. Ariel Fernandez (talk · contribs), Arifer (talk · contribs)), and it's natural to wonder whether someone signing as "Argentine Natl. Research Council" is in fact the Argentine Natl. Research Council. In fact, there's an interesting comparison to be made between information in the article infobox and the geo-locate result for the IP address. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we can see, the article in the secondary source mentioned is about the blog Retraction Watch, echoes the personal conflict between Retraction Watch and Ariel Fernandez, and makes no assessment on the impact/importance of having 3 challenged papers for the career of Ariel Fernandez. Challenged papers are relatively common in science, especially for prolific authors. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council181.228.138.187 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No hatred is involved; never heard of him before the BLPN postings. NPOV is exactly what is at issue here. And I suggest stop pretending to post on behalf of the research council. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View: The paragraph you keep inserting mentions papers for which there is no mention of ethical breach on behalf of Dr. Fernandez and for which no definite action has been taken by the journals. This is not adding meaningful information and is potentially libellous as per BLP discussions. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

Challenged papers are a common occurrence in science - this is wrong or misleading. Yes, in all of science, there are a lot of challenged papers. But a) most of these challenges do not take the form of a retraction or correction by the journal, and b) such challenges for each individual scientists are rare. I'm not aware of any scientist in my field whose paper has been formally retracted, or tagged with a note by the journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{ec}} "Challenged papers are relatively common in science, especially for prolific authors." is a big {{cn}} for the pattern or a reliable source as to what the "right" or "acceptable/normal" level of this situation is for authors. Multiple occurances of this sort of journal and co-author response to a single author seems to be saying something about the author, not just one-off or back-and-forth debate among similarly-referreed articles. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of this material was debatable in the past, but it isn't anymore. The Chronicle of Higher ed is without question a very high quality RS, and the new article repeats the same info that was formerly sourced to retraction watch - as statements of fact, in its own voice. I can see no valid reason for removing the content now. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the recent RSN discussion here - with multiple admits and veteran editors defending retraction watch alone as a source for this. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Chronicle of Higher Education is about the blog Retraction Watch and does not inform us on any ethical breach on behalf of Dr. Ariel Fernandez. The impact or importance of the challenged papers for the career of the doctor is not assessed by any reputable source. Since no definite action has been taken by the journals in regards to the challenged articles, and there is no mention of a serious breach of ethics, the whole is issue is not worth mentioning in a neutral article on the subject.181.228.138.187 (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

As far as we can see, the questioning of research articles authored by Dr. Ariel Fernandez is not noteworthy, and there is no source justifying or supporting inclusion in Wikipedia. Please advice.181.228.138.187 (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

The questioning of articles, in particular by Retraction Watch and as a highlighted example in particular Fernandez's articles, seems to be exactly what the Chronicle article is about. If RW is indiscriminate about what it publishes, there are dozens or hundreds of examples possible, but CoHE chose this one as presumably a good example for their purposes. So that means CoHE is an independent and (presumably) reliable source that thinks the controversy over Fernandez's articles is worth mentioning. That may not be the most significant aspect of Fernandez's career, but by cite it appears to be a notable one in the world outside whatever his scientific niche is. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education is about Retraction Watch, not about the career of Dr. Fernandez and the information on Dr. Fernandez's spat with Retraction Watch was provided by Retraction Watch itself as example of "nobody messes with us". The Chronicle of Higher Education is simply echoing Retraction Watch, not stating that Dr. Fernandez career is significantly affected by the anonymous questioning of his scientific papers. In other words, CHE is not specifically supporting the inclusion of questioning of Dr. Fernandez papers as a noteworthy issue when discussing Dr. Fernandez's scientific career. The Wikipedia article is out of balance. There are six references out of 15 dealing with the questioning of his 2 papers while Dr. Fernandez has published over 350 papers. The article reads like something about Dr. Fernandez issues, rather than about his career. To paraphrase senior editor Gamaliel:"His online CV mentions a number of secondary sources which discuss his work. We should improve the sections which discuss his work if we are going to include stuff on the retractions, otherwise his article is just blah blah blah chemist retractions. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)"

Thanks for your attention. Plase advice. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

Your understanding of how articles are edited here is simply out of line with the normal way of doing things. It also misrepresents the CHE article -- I do wonder if the IP editor has read all of it; it discusses Ariel Fernandez more than any other single individual. And I reiterate: there is no reason to believe that the person posting from the IP address is in fact a representative of the "Argentine Natl. Research Council". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We apologize if we are missing something here. We cannot find anything in the CHE article that supports inclusion of the questioning of Dr. Fernandez papers as a noteworthy item when featuring Dr. Fernandez career. The CHE article merely echoes Retraction Watch who provided the case of Dr. Ariel Fernandez as illustration of "don't mess around with us". Merely questioning 2-3 scientific papers anonymously is not noteworthy when describing a scientific career, especially given that the subject has published 350 papers or perhaps more and no breach of ethics is mentioned. As editor Gamaliel and others in the BLP notice board have said, that is grossly disproportionate, and, we believe, potentially libellous.181.228.138.187 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

Oh, but what about this discussion in the Talk page of the article? Resolved? Far from it. Pasted below are the argument by editor Rubiscous:

It isn't mentioned elsewhere in the context in which it is presented in your edit, ie without mention of the spat with Retraction Watch. If there had been no heated exchange, if there had been no legal threats from Dr Fernandez, there would have been no mention of events in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and I dare say there would be no attempts to make mention of them in this Wikipedia article. The questioning of the papers are currently being presented as noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something that is supported by the source. Rubiscous (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

181.228.138.187 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

If, if if. But there were, and they got reported publicly, so now it's out in the open. Public persons doing things publicly that relate to those person's public lives that get publicity? Well that's exactly how the world works. Streisand Effect. DMacks (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concern with this BLP is that there are negative implications that are not supported by reliable sources. This issue has been raised in the Talk page of the article by editor Minor4th.181.228.138.187 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, please stop abusing us and deprecating Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Dr. Ariel Fernandez has done more than writing 3 questioned papers. According to the public records, he has published at least 350 papers, wrote two books and holds two patents. As numerous editors have indicated, the BLP on the subject is not in compliance with the neutrality tone that must prevail at Wikipedia. Please stop your hate-driven attack on the subject! The National Research Council of Argentina has regional centers throughout the country and Dr. Fernandez, who resides in Basel (Schweiz), is probably unaware that you are defaming him by abusing the Wikipedia platform. He certainly has the right to defend himself but has not done so as far as we can tell. We don´t owe you any explanation, yet we feel we need to tell you to please stop attacking everybody who stands up for Dr. Fernandez.190.97.61.112 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council[reply]

Anyone associated with Ariel Fernandez is perfectly welcome to propose edits on the article talk page. No-one will object to expanding the article in ways that describe his accomplishments, as long as that material can be supported with reference to sources that meet WP:RS, in particular if they are WP:SECONDARY sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wuerzele is insistent on adding a further reading list to Kevin Folta's BLP.[6] The further reading section Wuerzele proposes only contains articles that allege or imply Folta has a conflict of interest with Monsanto. In other words everything in his further reading section focuses on one scandal involving Folta and paints him in a negative light. Is this an appropriate use of the further reading section on a BLP? Brustopher (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should have started on the talk page, but now it's here, let's stay. The section is unnecessary as the the topic is already covered extensively in the the relevant section and there is therefore nothing 'further' that those links add. I also agree with your assessment that this selection of sources is unduly negative and is best avoided in a BLP. SmartSE (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly there was never any talk page discussion considering how many times the content was reinserted. The article is under 1RR restrictions with the ongoing GMO ArbCom case, so violations by those with the sanctions notification on the their talk page would best be brought up at WP:AE.

Crap. I did not realise the discretionary sanctions came with a 1RR rule. I'm assuming Wuerzele was similarly unaware, so I don't see the need to bring anyone to AE. I'm going to add the proper tags and notices onto the page so that people remember from now on. Brustopher (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible if you've been alerted of the sanctions on your talk page. Wuerzle was, but you weren't, so I wouldn't worry about your edits since you weren't aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the actual content, I generally reserve the need for further reading sections for good sources to list that give broad coverage to a large topic. For this article though, sources should be anchored to content as this BLP doesn't really need a further reading section at this time even if the intent was "balance." [7] Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The insidehighered.com article is more nuanced than the other articles and doesn't appear to be particularly negative. It could be a good addition to the article as a reference. It is focused on Folta, and quotes him at length, while the others are more generally about Monsanto connections in academia. Inclusion as a ref is preferable to placement in a 'further reading' section.Dialectric (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading section feels like WP:COATRACKing to me. Only articles directly about Folta himself should be included there, rather than articles about specific controversial incidents. If the articles are relevant to the conflict of interest allegations, then they should either be worked in to that section if they offer new valuable information or used as additional references for information already included. Adrian (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that there is edit warring going on there. I would agree that a list of further reading is probably not appropriate there, but that good sources can be worked into the text on the whole controversy. We must note that the editing atmosphere on that page has been very contentious, as it is tied with the whole contentious area relating to GMOs and the agrochemical industry in general. "Further reading" sections can be very useful to a reader, but in this instance, it's bound to rile some tensions. I recommend working good sources into the text. SageRad (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- part of the problem is that past attempts to mention and source this controversy within the article have been aggressively obstructed. I believe Wuerzele's addition of links for further reading was an innovative response to historic obstruction to normal editing on this article (and the topic area). That said, I agree with comments above that the content should be properly integrated in the article, rather than tacked on as further reading. The Arb case is winding down, and hopefully the behaviors and frustrations that lead to this type of response by Wuerzele will no longer plague these articles -- but it might take some time before things calm a bit and the wider community becomes aware of the Arb restrictions in the topic area. My advice is proceed reasonably and cautiously on these articles. Minor4th 17:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A good third of the article is dedicated to the controversy. If anyone's trying to aggressively obstruct mention of it, they're doing a terrible job. Brustopher (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. The "problem" as far as some are concerned is that the article contains anything positive at all. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a complete and utter lie. This is not a playground, no schoolyard for your aspersions and sarcasm. It helps NOTHING to resolve the issue. It is plainly WP:disruptive. You should strike this note.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I described is what was happening in the past - if that has since changed, then I agree that the further reading links are misplaced. If Folta is truly notable for something other than the recent controversy over his independence - then there should be plenty of sources to write a decent biography. I can't think of a good reason that this negative info about the controversy should occupy a third of the article. Minor4th 03:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to shine a light on the article about Fiona Graham, where several users, including but not limited to, DAJF, have been, for several years, preventing from putting any positive information, and relentlessly removing any edits that do not fit their agenda. Meanwhile, they have been keeping for five years a birthdate that is both disputed and which sources are either not reliable (citing old versions of the Wikipedia article) or offline (in the case of the Library of Congress, which does not display a date of birth). Biographies of living persons are obviously a very sensitive matter, and considering the traffic of Wikipedia, I believe, while we should be very careful about not writing any lies, we should also be careful about not causing unnecessary difficulty to the person.

In the particular case of Fiona Graham, who works as a geisha, the date of birth especially is troubling, as this is supposed to be extremely confidential. While I understand the point of an encyclopedia, there is also a problem of private life, and in that case, a serious impact on professional life. And for a body of work that is supposed, at its core, to make people understand the world and the different culture, I find the lack of respect for the geisha culture to be troubling, and I believe it should be taken in consideration.

Being relatively new here, is there any higher editor that can help me? Eight years of especially monitoring a page seems like a strong dedication for someone who is not related to the topic at all, unless they are, in which case I believe their judgment can be biased, as shown in their various edits. Does any higher moderator here has the power to ban problematic editors from a wikipedia page?

Chriss1991 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991[reply]

• There is a 400 year old tradition that a geisha does not reveal her age, but there is a 2,000 year old tradition that encyclopedias provide the most reliable information available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If an administrator is going to ban someone it would be the disruptive single-purpose-account. You have the same editing pattern as the SPA User:Boris514 and User:Takuman.sb and User:Henrywoodley28 and IP 201.73.46.114 and IP 186.232.40.77 (using Brazilian IP addresses) and User:Karheimer and User:Stubeellie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Chriss1991 has now removed sourced details from the Fiona Graham article four times in the space of just over 24 hours, despite being reverted by three different editors. The user has therefore received a warning about edit warring and specifically the three-revert rule. --DAJF (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced? Most "sources" link back to wikipedia pages, and the only two that lead to dates are conflicting. Yet the 1961 date is displayed several times on the page. This is clearly a personal and professional attack against Sayuki under the disguise of following wikipedia rules. Chriss1991 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991[reply]

You are well aware of the link to the Library of Congress website with the exact date of her birth, because you removed it four times, and it has been restored four times, by three different people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about this link: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/nb2011014699.html I fail to see where you find her birthdate. The other links link to the Library of Congress wikipedia page. Chriss1991 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991[reply]

The birth date was apparently removed from the Library of Congress website on 20 October. It can of course still be viewed at the archived copies such as here, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, her birth date is still reliably sourced and verifiable. --DAJF (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLPPRIVACY provides clear grounds for excluding her birthdate, given her clearly expressed wishes not to have it widely known. WP:BLPPRIMARY says, don't use primary sources for this purpose, only use secondary sources (and then a primary source can be used to "augment"/reinforce). I don't normally resort to the dramatic language of "BLP violation", but in this case it's pretty clear what the policy instructs us to do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What evidence do we have that she does not want the English Wikipedia to display her birthday? She gave her age in an interview, and she gave her year of birth in her book when she was an anthropologist. All we have are SPAs saying it violates the geisha tradition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind removing the month and day, but even that policy says when a subject objects, "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Removing it wholesale is not something I agree with. Cannolis (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a good secondary source for it, then great. Otherwise WP:BLPPRIMARY is an obstacle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Library of Congress website is not a primary document, her birth certificate would be a primary document. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Telegraph article that was cited should be sufficient. This might actually help clear up the somewhat confusing issue with conflicting birth dates from the National Library of Australia Catalogue. Cannolis (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Telegraph article just gives an age in 2011, so I guess we'd still have to use the September date to figure out her birth year. Cannolis (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the conflicting dates? Shouldn't the subject of the article file an OTRS to remove her birthdate? As of now we have 6 single purpose accounts demanding it be removed because of a geisha tradition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph article, dated 2011, says she was 47, implying that she was born in 1964 (or perhaps 1965). This is of course different from the LOC record of 1961. I don't care about "geisha tradition"; I've removed it mainly because it's not obvious what the right information is and because the source being used did not accord with WP:BLPPRIMARY. I suppose the Telegraph would be okay as a secondary source, but there's a strong impression here that other editors think the information in it is wrong -- so using it sounds like a bad idea. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue that editors had(or at least the issue I had) with the Telegraph source is that there was conflicting information from the Catalogue and the Catalogue seems to be a better source. But if its use is prohibited by BLPPRIMARY, then the next best thing clearly is to use a fairly reputable secondary source, not omit information altogether and appear to give in to censorship. Cannolis (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is what the library of Congress has to say: "When we removed your birth date, we added a note that you had asked it not be given. This is standard procedure to prevent other partner libraries from adding it back in. The date is no longer in the LC catalog and hasn't been since 2011 when your record was last updated. As to the privacy issue, the Library of Congress is a federal government agency and by definition, just about everything we do is public domain. You now need to ask Wikipedia to remove the information." I believe this is clearly shows that Sayuki doesn't want her age to be displayed, for professional and privacy reasons. Chriss1991 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991[reply]

So you are Fiona Graham and editing under a pseudonym? That looks like a personal email to Graham. Or are you pretending to be Graham when you are communicating with the Library of Congress? You either are Fiona Graham, or are pretending to be her in communications with the Library of Congress, which is it? Both these deceptive options are very troubling. The real Fiona Graham can file an OTRS report with Wikipedia with a scan her drivers license in the email and the OTRS people will decide if the communication is real, otherwise anyone can spoof being her. Hell, you can pretend you are the head of the CIA to AOL, it isn't that hard. Are you the person with the IP address from Brazil, several times you forgot to login when you deleted her birthday and the edits were under the IP address from Brazil. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried more than once to change wording in the lede of this article to read non-POV and to not give analysis of Moore's acting career. I've been reverted each time. Edits are here: [8], [9]; [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Requesting new eyes on this and comments that address the edits I've tried to make as well as the reversions happening each time I attempt to make the edits. Of course, I believe the version I changed it to is better than the article status quo, otherwise I wouldn't be changing it. Thanks in advance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a WP:BLP issue; it appears to be a simple content dispute, and you appear to be edit-warring and need to stop and get consensus on the talk page. Recommend closing this thread here as it's not a BLPN issue. (By the way in point of fact MTM's role, casting, and acting in Ordinary People was astonishly different from anything she'd ever done before, so much so that no one could even immediately understand why Redford cast her. It merits being mentioned in the lede, although talk page consensus should be ascertained wither way.) Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 - It's a BLP article where there is a content dispute. I don't see how a content issue at a BLP isn't a BLP issue. 2 - Obviously, I'm not edit warring there any more than anyone else, but you blame me alone for edit warring? How very biased of you, Softlavender. 3 - Yes, her acting in Ordinary People was quite different than anything else she had done before, however, to include that in Wikipedia-voice is inappropriate. If it's in the article, it needs to be attributed to a reliable source, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a movie review site nor is it an actor's fan site where such analysis would be appropriate. In an encyclopedia, not appropriate unless it's in quote form or prose form coming from the voice of a reviewer/reputable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." What you have here is a simple content dispute, nothing whatsoever defamatory or libelous. Resolve the simple non-controversial, non-libelous, non-defamatory content dispute on the article's talk page, and if necessary avail yourself of WP:DR methods. Do not edit war, and do not bring simple non-controversial content disputes to the WP:BLPN. You are edit warring: You made a substantive removal from the status quo and instead of observing WP:BRD when it was replaced you are edit warring with two other editors to keep your removal out rather than retaining the status quo ante prior to obtaining consensus that it should be removed. If you want a citation on something add a CN tag; don't remove it. -- Softlavender (talk)

Fine, perhaps I came to the wrong noticeboard - that will be righted later. Being at the wrong noticeboard doesn't change the fact that the article lede contains non-encyclopedic and POV wording. The other fact is the edit warring flag you are flying is inconsequential in light of that POV and inappropriate wording. And any edit warring happening there certainly is not one-sided. No edit warring ever is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lede contains a clear neutral statement of fact which even you agreed is factual. No noticeboard at all is necessary for this issue, simply a talk-page discussion if you still take issue with the lede, or a CN tag if you want citations (but if the material is discussed and cited in the body text it does not have to also be cited in the lede). And the two other editors were simply restoring the longterm status quo ante per WP:BRD. Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one of them. The other is exercising article ownership and has been doing so there for a while now. And I didn't admit anything. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote above: "Yes, her acting in Ordinary People was quite different than anything else she had done before". You were edit-warring to remove a fact that you yourself admit was accurate, and failing to observe WP:BLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the statement doesn't mean I think it should be in the lede or the article in Wiki-voice.

Edits made over last week are biased and editor continuously undoes edits to remove bias. Also, sources to an opinion piece.

Hello,

I am a children's book creator. About 10 years ago, I created a biography on myself on Wikipedia. It was quickly taken down and explained that it went against the policy. Understood. Several years later, I'm supposing after winning some national awards and gaining more notoriety, someone else created a page. It was accurate and well used by students at schools. While doing a book signing at a national reading conference two years ago, someone walked up to me and identified themselves as a Wikipedia photographer, snapped a picture. Several weeks later, a picture turned up on the wikipedia site. Recently, a librarian warned me that there was a large warning on the Wikipedia page, saying that it would be taken down soon, as there was some violation. I looked through the page, it was all accurate, the only thing inaccurate, defamatory or libelous was the Wikipedia warning itself, and then the whole page disappeared sometime after that. I have no idea why this happened, or why someone would do that. I played by the rules by leaving the page alone, as someone had created it. There aren't many author bios on Wikipedia that feature people of color, and now I'm wondering if there was some other motivation behind what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.55.59 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has criteria for the inclusion of biographies (see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for details). The article Don Tate was most recently nominated for deletion by User:MelanieN. A discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Tate (2nd nomination). Consensus was that the subject did not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and the page was therefore deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Edgar. Actually it was nominated for deletion by User:Smartse. I was the administrator who deleted it, based on the nomination and discussion. People at the discussion did seem open to the possibility that the article could be improved if better sources could be found. I am quite willing to restore the article and try to improve it, which means adding more sources about the subject. Mr. Tate, I appreciate you "following the rules" by not editing the article. You should continue to follow that policy. However, you can use the article's talk page to suggest material to add (such a reviews, or awards you have won), and references that can be used. If the information is verified by sources, someone will add it to the article. I should warn you that this does not guarantee it will be kept as an article; it still needs to meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Awards need to be major, books need to be reviewed by major sources. But let's give it another shot. Thanks for calling this to our attention. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that it is okay for me, myself, to go in there and add suggestions to the talk page (just not the page itself)? As I remember, the article was pretty well sourced and credible, and all reviews (many are starred reviews, and end of year best-of lists) from major book review journals. I checked around at other author bios on Wikipedia on par with mine, none were any better sourced but still exist. Whoever created this page on my behalf did a pretty good job. However, if you're saying that I myself can go in and make suggestions, I will do that. Where do I find the page to do that, however? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.55.59 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you absolutely can make suggestions at the talk page. It is located at Talk:Don Tate, or you can just click on the link that says "talk" above the article. Right now there are several experienced "article rescuers" working on the article, and I think you will be pleased with how it is going. --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MelanieN: I'm a bit mystified why you've unilaterally restored this when there are no new sources demonstrating notability. If it didn't meet GNG three weeks ago what has changed? I'd request that you userfy it instead until notability is demonstrated and all of the content is properly sourced. As to COI - there's no way that this version wasn't influenced by Tate since User:The Librarian at Terminus knew his DOB and other personal information that hasn't been published elsewhere. SmartSE (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smartse: I restored it for two reasons: one, both of the commenters at the AfD indicated they would accept the article if it had better sources (although they didn't suggest any); and two, I wouldn't know who to userfy it to; certainly not the IP/subject. I intend to improve it myself if possible, and others are working on it; I see that one additional reference has already been added. If you still find it unacceptable after a week or so, feel free to AfD it again; in fact if I feel that it hasn't been sufficiently improved after a week or so I will G4 it myself. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MelanieN: Ok fair enough. Thanks for explaining. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smartse: I've now included more pertinent sourcing materials to be used. I'm not a Wikipedia user, so I don't know if I've done it right, but I did include it in a talk area(?). Now it appears the page has some kind of warning across the top which makes it look suspicious, when, again, the only thing on the page that is inaccurate is the warning banner. Did I put the information in the right place?

Also, I've looked up the source mentioned above, "The Librarian at Terminu". I have no idea who this is, though I'm thankful to them whoever they are. As a picture book author who knows how to research, it is not difficult to find a person's birthday. In the day of the internet, it's not secret. I speak at elementary schools all over the country, and I get all kinds of questions, including kids asking me for my birthday.

To the editor claiming to be Don Tate (IP 173.174.55.59), please be sure to sign all your comments. Here's now. Thanks. Czoal (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. Seeking assistance on this. Adele has just announced her new album will be 25. I've tried to create a page for this: 25 (Adele album), problem is when I type this in it redirects to her bio. Anyone know how to avoid this and create a new article for her album? Cheers. RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you click through a redirect, you can see a small link under the title "Redirected from ..." which gives you a link like this which should help. No comment about whether there is yet enough coverage to justify an article though, you are on your own with that. --ℕ ℱ 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh so just had to click on the redirect link. I assumed when something notable is confirmed (film, album, etc.) that the green light is then given to start an article. I'll make a start anyway and hopefully it's not deemed premature. Cheers.RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyaag (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly what this noticeboard is for; if you think the woman isn't notable, I suggest placing a {{notability}} tag at the top of that article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Anne Hillyer - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo Campbell-Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contains sections with deliberately inaccurate content about a living person and breaches policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertwashere (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article the OP is referring to is Ludo Campbell-Reid. At any rate, that article is in terrible shape, not only with its overall structure and bad grammar, but also that it is written in an overly promotional tone. I think someone needs to apply some TNT. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain this person meets WP:GNG. I have removed the obvious puffery and unsourced material. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello. I'd like to point editors to a discussion happening on the Talk page of the Hansjörg Wyss entry about the Synthes USA section.

Wyss was the CEO of Synthes for many years, including during an indictment and ensuing court cases regarding the marketing of an untested medical procedure that resulted in three deaths. Wyss was never part of the indictment, so my feeling is that the level of detail included in his article should be minimal (I should also note that this issue is covered in the Synthes article here). Another editor on the Talk page does not agree. I am also concerned that there's some language in the section that does not accurately reflect sources.

Here is source material from Fortune and The New York Times about the matter, the original text in the Wyss article, my suggested language, and the current text as edited by Rms125a@hotmail.com. I'd appreciate some help from editors here reviewing these and weighing in on the Talk page with their thoughts.

I also need to disclose that I have a financial conflict of interest and I am working on the article on behalf of The Wyss Foundation. That said, my aim is to remain neutral, accurate, and follow all guidelines while making suggestions about the article's content (I don't ever edit directly).

Thanks in advance—I realize this is a tricky situation and will require some effort to get caught up, but the perspective of an editor very familiar with BLP guidelines is much needed. Heatherer (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Lianne Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After going through each section, the edits over the last two weeks have vandalized my page outrageously. I cant emphasize the pain and grief this is causing myself and my family. There are endless untrue insertions. the few things that have citations added 10/21 do not support the statements whatsoever. PLEASE RESTORE PLEASE PROTECT MY PAGE AGAIN

Thank you for your time & help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.89.37 (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Lianne Chandler again

Hello

This page about my life is being continuously vandalized again.

In almost every section stuff has been deleted along with sources and altered.

I know for awhile my page was protected and stuff like this was removed quickly and reversed to its original content.

The stuff over the last two weeks is slanderous, libelous and the sources don't even lead to anything about me or not what is being said.

Please undo this vandalism.

If my page is no longer protected, could it please be flagged to be protected again?

Thank you very much for your time and help.

Taylor Lianne Chandler

I checked and it seems these issues have been addressed. Please let us know if otherwise. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Buika The bio seems poorly sourced and fractious regarding relative, Concha Buika. This article also contains poor English and sounds like it may have been written by someone working for Virginia Buika, almost like a PR release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.229.155 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced this to a stub. Apart from the unreferenced and potentially libellous commentary on her relative, virtually the entire article was copyvio from here. This page needs more eyes please. Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have Provided all the additional citations for above mentioned article that is=[17].Nothing is unsourced,libelous or harmful.Pls remove the tags created for this page such as - article needs additional citations for verification ].I have provided sound sources and all the data is correct and genuine.I will be very thankful to you for this work.Manjinder3 (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tag stating that the article needs improved referencing is very valid. The sources are currently very poor, almost entirely all of them to the subject's own website. I suggest you read WP:VERIFY, and improve the article accordingly. I'm afraid it will stay there until you or someone else provides adequate referencing. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Source of the data in article is from the official facebook page of the singer .the link for official fb page is=[18].This proves that information is genuine.you can check for yourselves.What more I need to do to prove itManjinder3 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VERIFY and also read WP:BLPSOURCES on the sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons. Your current referencing is completely inadequate. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all the important information and cited the sound sources for article-[19].Can u help me to remove the tags and I don't know why it is considered for deletion as I have gave reliable sources and information about person is true and genuine.I will be very thankful to you for removing these tags as there is libelous or harmful material in article.Manjinder3 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only tag on this article is that it is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranjit Bawa. If the decision is to keep the article, then the deletion discussion notice will be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

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

Hi! This article was edited to add a date of death for the subject, but there was no citation, and I can find no news stories indicating that he has died. However the edit was by a person with a long history of editing this subject, and I don't think this is malicious, so I hesitate to revert it. Advice? Thanks! BenBurch (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Malicious or not, possibly true or not, we should never state that a previously living person has died without a reliable published source. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BenBurch (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a blog piece News in a reliable source will follow pretty soon. I'll keep looking. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a blog post is insufficient for our purposes. I'm looking too and will make the change as soon as there is a reliable source. I have just reverted yet another listing of his death, this time by an IP. Doing otherwise is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and no original research. We're an encyclopedia, not the source of breaking news. A delay of a few days has zero consequences. An error has potentially enormous ones, and there have been multiple examples in the past. This article needs more eyes on it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything on "News" page of department where he is professor emeritus or on the various authority-control records. DMacks (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article in Jacobin (magazine), does that make the cut as an RS for this? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a copy of the blog post and by the same author. I would want something much more reliable than that. That blog post was written after the death had been posted on Wikipedia. For all we know, the author of the blog post got it from Wikipedia. There was an incident a few months ago where an IP edited Wikipedia to "report" that Nicolai Gedda had died. (Like Wolin, Gedda is in his 90s and a death was plausible.) Norman Lebrecht, heard the rumour of Gedda's death on Twitter, checked Wikipedia, assumed it was therefore true and published a fulsome obituary in his blog. Gedda was and is very much alive. See this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by Princeton University office of communications. NE Ent 19:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that reference to the article now. Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Keen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be vandalism at page Andrew Keen.

It's sat there for four (4) days.

Would appreciate if some other editor could take a look and clean it up.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Crystallizedcarbon (talk · contribs), for fixing it. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: An image tag has been attached to this wikipedia/google page that directs the viewer away from wikipedia to one of your competitors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no image or file tags in this article, which has been stable since October 8. Perhaps you have had something infest your browser? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or more likely looking at the Google knowledge chart which gives a credit to wikipedia even though it is grabbing stuff from all over the net. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article contains defamatory material. Statements purporting to be factual are clearly opinions and sound like a hate attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8320:13D0:7400:CD54:7BE9:137F (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been removed for now. Looks like the article needs watching though, attack material has been added several times recently. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added to watchlist.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Beall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not sure if this edit is a BLP or UNDUE violation. But I am concerned enough about it to bring it here for more scrutiny. Everymorning (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on this draft? The article subject does seem to be known mainly for a conviction related to illegal fishing, but I'm not sure this is a balanced biography. Not sure if the best approach would be to have an article on the illegal fishing issue and redirect there. Any input appreciated! Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted earlier, but no comments were received. All of the press coverage on this person has been negative (so it's hard to avoid being biased toward the negative side of things), but I've sourced everything. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Fraenir (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This contains what are probably libellous comments about child molesting. I suspect they have been added today given he has taken over a caretaker Aston Villa manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.48.25 (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Oversight might be a good idea. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted an unreferenced statement here - I had previously advised that talk pages are subject to provisions regarding living persons, but the advice was not heeded. I would prefer if others take a look/keep an eye on this. There is another unredacted instance where an identifiable notable person is described as "nutty, uninformed, uneducated". This may require similar redaction. There may be other similar instances on this talk page, I haven't read it all through. Samsara 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not as a rule require all statements on talk pages to be referenced. In fact the use of footnotes on talk pages is usually frowned upon. Collect (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP, especially the third paragraph. Samsara 15:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the person has said he was not allowed in the park, the statement that he is not allowed in the part seems quite non-contentious as a claim. It does not impute any evil or improper act to the person at all. If he had written "George Gnarph is a known murderer" or the like - that requires some sourcing - the case at hand is far from that --- your position would say that I need a cite for "Bob Dylan does not perform under his real name". Collect (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just give the reference then, since you claim to have it? Samsara 16:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not do so - I explained why your edit war to prevent a simple statement which is not contentious was wrong. Having me add reflist here would simply be absurd a la Ionesco. Collect (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of on-and-off argument over the "Criticism" section for Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian professor and activist who is known, to be fair, for holding some decidedly non-mainstream views. I'd be grateful for some advice/third opinions as to whether the following sources and content really are appropriate for a BLP and whether it's advisable for the page to load up a dedicated "Criticism" section, which is purely neagtive in tone and devoid of any context, at all.

• This blog post by a not particularly notable left-wing activist and junior academic, focused on attacking the subject, from which the quote "noted apologist for the Milosevic regime" has been sourced
• This somewhat pithy and polemical newspaper column, again by a seemingly non-notable author, which includes the subject among a list of radical university professors who the author appears to dislike. This is the source for an explicit quote describing the subject as one of "Canada's nuttiest professors"
• This op-ed piece in the National Post, from which a quote is sourced that describes the subject as "mouthing Baathist propaganda"

I and others have tried to remove this material and the sources in question, while retaining some more factually sober criticism and incorporating that across the article as a whole, but have been reverted, both recently and a while ago now. There is quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, going back several months, which reflects widespread concern about the appropriateness of the material. However, there are one or two – not inexperienced – editors active on the page who will nonetheless not accept any attempt to deal with this. N-HH talk/edits 15:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely discard the first source - don't even think about it. As for the other two, they might be usable as sources, but what concerns me about that article's section is that no differing views are proposed. As it stands the 4 paragraphs just list a series of relatively negative notions about the subject with no balance whatsoever. If reliable sources can be found that represent the subject in a different light, then the section needs to reflect those views accordingly. We need to do some research in order to proceed. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna have a hard time finding sources like that - Chossudovsky doesn't have a lot of non-fringe fans. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there don't appear to be that many detailed or objective assessments of him or his views in decent sources, which is a problem for generating content. But does it follow that we use blogs and op-eds which don't really illuminate much but simply fling insults at him? Surely the prohibition on such sources in a BLP is absolute, not "they'll do until we find better"? N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jigme Singye Wangchuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is clearly written from POV and most of the information is unsourced. Not sure what to do with it. Elsan (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could link it for a start! Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) ------------ I used the automatic form and it linked in the title automatically. Elsan (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It reads very officially, but is well-written. There isn't anything missing from the previous version I think, & generally its fuller and better. The same editor has done the other Kings of Bhutan and may be an official (see Dasho). I've no doubt official sources would confirm it all, and there's relatively little other in depth coverage in the media. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of adding a notice about neutrality. The content of the article seems good but the tone is not encyclopedic. For example, other monarchs are not called "His Majesty" in their articles. Elsan (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup, but it needs additional work and sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wasn't sure where to start. Elsan (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antony Coia is a BLP. I would like eyes other than those of anyone who has a conflict over anything even remotely connected to this or related articles to check the sourcing therein to ensure claims and sources conform to Wikipedia policies concerning sourcing and BLPs. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time. The first one it was archived. Stop persecuting me and the articles I create. Please look at here: [20] Pizzole (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking additional uninvolved editors to keep an eye on a biography of a living person is not persecuting you, Pizzole. Instead, it is good practice here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aside from not being a notable figure this page includes unsourced and poorly sourced information that is seemingly libelous. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.232.146 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is definitely notable as a major philanthropist and art collector. Everything is referenced; nothing seems libelous.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zigzig20s. The person is notable and I see no trace of libel or any BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion on WP:AN concerning an editor, one aspect of which is in regard to his editing of a BLP article Since there are other aspects as well, I suggest the discussion be kept centralized there, but the denizens of this board might like to bring their experience with BLP issues to the discussion, which is here. BMK (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for confusion in not being competent to edit or revise Wikipedia articles. I grew up with an Underwood. I love Wikipedia, especially in historical research. I have no personal interest in the Brugnara case. I am only interested in Wikipedia's credibility. It seems like Wikipedia has been gamed. I hope one of the inestimable volunteers can do what needs to be done. I would recommend that the entire article be rewritten or, preferably, spiked. You can see why if you call up "Luke Brugnara" on Google, a Wikipedia biography apparently submitted by the subject. Then take note of other Brugnara articles and news clips in Google, including his 7-year sentence for art fraud announced last week in the San Francisco Chronicle. See: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-real-estate-investor-gets-7-year-sentence-in-6583129.php Also see: http://abc7news.com/news/san-francisco-real-estate-tycoon-sentenced-for-art-fraud/1043136/

I am a retired reporter/editor in San Francisco at the Chronicle and the pre-merger Examiner.

Yours truly,

Lynn Ludlow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.88.243 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the aricle is terrible and should be replaced. Why don't you write one? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I was hoping that I could get some BLP-strong eyes over at Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. There's some content about crimes the guy has been accused of, and I want to be sure that it's being presented (or not) in a way that is consistent with our BLP guidelines. There have been some problems with editors like this guy being very specific, so that has caused concern. For some background, the subject is an Indian religious leader who has starred in not one, but two self-aggrandizing propaganda films. In one of them, he kicks an elephant's ass. If that doesn't get you interested in this article, I dunno what will! Guaranteed amusement! Here's a trailer for his latest film, MSG-2: The Messenger Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]