User:Trinacrialucente, here and User:Bad Dryer both seem to be engaged in an abuse of standard WP:BLP policies, bordering on a sanctionable breach of the rules.

I’ll repeat the point re the latter’s removal as I have made it before the WP:RS noticeboard, and ask for informed external input. User:Bad Dryer excised an important clarification of statutory rape in a footnote to the lead of Ezra Nawi here. The given reason was that the source was a blog.’rmv blog. This is a BLP’

The source is:

Alex Massie The Last of Mr Norris, The Spectator.

'Most of the coverage of the case that I’ve seen has hyped the "rape" aspect of the matter and downplayed the "statutory" part. And with good reason since, oft-forgotten in the subsequent brouhaha, this was, and was accepted as such by the Israeli court, an episode of consensual sex. People may still find this an unsavoury episode but the Israeli court plainly accepted that though in a technical sense a crime had been committed there was no malice involved and no real victim. If that had not been the case one would have expected Nawi to spend more than just a month in prison. But that’s what happened.'

I can’t see why a clarification from a leading journalist, with a mainstream curriculum, writing in a highly respected weekly, on the distinction between rape and statutory rape, infringes WP:BLP. Indeed I put it in because I think introducing, as this and several other editors have, sources with headlines screaming ‘rapist’ (which he most definitely was not) was a BLP violation. A regular page hosted by a major journal for a noted journalist is not what we exclude as a blog (personal page run by anyone).

The editor Bad Dryer in other words has no problem introducing Irish tabloid sources re a living person in Israel that blur a legal distinction, but objects to a major mainstream source written by an authoritative journalist which clarifies that distinction, and ludicrously does so citing WP:BLP. Comments from experts on both WP:BLP and WP:RS are needed somewhat urgently, given the delicacy of the issue and the repeated attempts, also by other editors, to get over he was a rapist, using violent coercion, precisely what the court verdict denied.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of Nishidnai is truly mind blowing. He himself used the Irish Times, numerous times, for claims in that very article about the same living person (e.g: [4], [5]), as well as adding "sources with headlines screaming ‘rapist’" - see [6]). But when I use the very same source, to provide references for claims he dislikes, suddenly it becomes "a tabloid" that should not be used. To be clear- Both the Wikipedia article and the Irish Times article used in reference do not at all blur any legal distinction, they both clearly state that the subject of the BLP was convicted of statutory rape, which is of course always consensual. Otherwise it would simply be rape.

The Massie piece is from a blog, and opinions from a blog can't be used to state facts in Wikipedia's voice. The specific claim (which I did not touch) already has two other sources, clearly more reliable , so there is no need for a third source which is not WP:RS-compliant.

I realize that Nishandi and Massie take a more favorable view of man-child sex than society on a whole does, but as was explained to him on the talk page, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a promotional brochure for NAMBLA. Bad Dryer (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In the case of David Norris's relations with Nawi I sometimes had to use the Irish Times by default. Where it confuses, deliberately, in a known campaign to smear Norris by smearing Nawi, in order to have the former lose the bid for presidency, I avoided using it. There is no 'hypocrisy'. Any journalist who refuses to distinguish 'rape' from 'statutory rape' should be sacked. Any editor who sees some smear advantage in exploiting that libelous confusion, shouldn't be editing articles like this.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Yisroel Belsky#Sexual abuse material.

The subject is not a living person. This discussion should be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. --Jersey92 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If he has died only this week, then it's entirely appropriate to discuss it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Eric Greitens is a candidate for Governor in Missouri. It appears that User:MOpoliticaljunkie is violating Wikipedia's BLP policies in each of his edits. He has been warned on his talk page, User talk:MOpoliticaljunkie.

It would benefit the Wiki community for administrators, editors, research librarians, etc. to rewrite the page using primary sources and reliable secondary sources, as well as block User:MOpoliticaljunkie from further vandalism.

Benchmark.stl (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I MOpoliticaljunkie have posted edits to the site all edited.

Benchmark.STL keeps removing the candidates referenced political stances that come not only from his website, but also his own mouth.

Due to the fact his campaign has been so criticized, I have included comments from both Republicans and Democrats. I also included the candidates own op-ed in which he explained his political transformation.

He has been vandalizing the political section to remove painstakingly sourced details of Eric Greitens' candicacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made some edits as have others from this noticeboard. I've also added a NPOV tag per WP:UNDUE. Undue weight is being given to criticism and controversy in the politics section. I've noted this on the talk page and am willing to collaborate with others to fix the problem and remove the tag.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.252.10 (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cori Yarckin

I don't mean to be obnoxious but how can this biography with only 1 reference/source to an event promotion uphold the living persons policy and other articles with multiple sources, rather mediocre or good be considered stubs and/or removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.244.167 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been flagged for notability since 2011. I'll do some aggressive clean up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Will Morefield

There have been a slew of malicious and potentially libellous updates regarding this politician after a news article was released today. This politician is not listed in the article used as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonknet (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted but more eyes please.--ukexpat (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as an update here, I've applied one week of semi to the article to put a lid on anonymous IP drive-bys — and I've posted a note to the talk page explaining why the edits in question are inappropriate. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

--ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

More input requested at Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz. In my opinion based on a reading of WP:BLP, WP:BASIC, and WP:FRINGE, the doctor does not meet WP's notability threshold. There is a paucity of reliable sources that mention her in depth. I think that Mehmet Oz, Andrew Weil, Dana Ullman and Robert O. Young are good examples of fringe-y medical providers who pass GNG. Dr. Schwartz seems to fall short. Delta13C (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done The AfD has been closed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This article was clearly written either by the subject himself or a family member, and is very unencyclopedic in tone. But the tone is only part of the problem, as he is not notable. The only claim to notability the article makes is the small handful of arguably non-notable snowboarding competitions he has participated in, the most recent of which was 7 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.87.210 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Amankwah was disqualified from being a director in 2013, according to the government.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/disqualified-officers/natural/SpDF5izAeYeoj24JZPINc7IGADA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.199.239 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request PROD This author is (almost?) entirely self-published, which means she almost certainly does not meet the criteria for notability for authors/pets. Also, the article contained many erroneous references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.107.9 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the above article regarding a biography of a living person. The article was previously deleted, but this is a quite different and properly cited article. This article now exists in other languages (German and Russian) with similar references. It has only started and can be improved. -Odysses (○) 02:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps different, but still failing to demonstrate notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nomoskedasticity. I am not aware of what the deleted article in September 2015 looked like since it's now deleted, but I guess it was created by a new user without much experience. I can only compare the new English version to the German and the Russian versions on Deli.

The German version only has two (2) references, whereas the English has eight (8)!!!. I have included reliable sources such as Fashion model directory and Victoria's Secret models but avoided to include references such as Instagram and Twitter since I don't considered them to be reliable sources.

I have consulted other articles of living persons. There are biography articles with much less info and references than Deli's article, such as: [7] [8] [9] [10].

There are three pages that link to Deli's article:

• Xenia (name) ‎
• List of Victoria's Secret models
• What Do You Mean?

The article on Deli has just started, I think it has the potential to expand and improve, so I don't see any reasons to delete. Any recommendations to improve it are welcomed. -Odysses (○) 14:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

On December 10, 2015, a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger resulted in the page Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger being deleted for non-notability. Two days later, an editor changed the title of an unrelated existing page [11] to the non-WP:COMMONNAME Patrick Mario Knapp Schwarzenegger as a way to circumvent that decision.

Audacious, right? I only found this out when I created a redirect page for this person's more common name, Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And they did a copy-paste recreation of B-Movie (disambiguation), the page he moved, to cover their tracks. I have marked that page for Speedy so that the moved page can be moved back, and thus restore the page's edit history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) kindly straightened this all out, re-merging the proper B-Movie article and nuking the Schwarzenegger one. It can be closed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced death reports. I've requested and been granted page protection, but the claims continue. Thus far I've only found one source online [12], which doesn't strike me as WP:RELIABLE, and I've seen nothing else to corroborate this. Any assistance would be appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Demoniacs, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to User:Jonathan A Jones's deletion of my request to address the issues at Talk:Paul Frampton#Strongly object to obvious libel and defamation and refusal to address my questions there. Would some uninvolved editor please opine on whether the article should give equal weight to both the Argentine and US court's opinions (e.g. as in [13]), or whether, as is the case now [14] events which were reversed by the US court, including innuendo, are allowed to stand as if they are fact, along with a summary of the subject's adverse events in the introduction? 67.6.182.89 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The actions of the Argentine court are fact. The actions of the US court are also fact -- but that doesn't mean that what the Argentine courts did are not. It's really a matter of what is in the reliable sources about this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why should the event be a full second of two paragraphs in the introduction? Why should the section heading purport an unestablished fact in the view of the American court? 67.6.182.89 (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Those new to this subject might like to know that there have been several relevant discussions on this noticeboard. The most recent discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive234#Paul_Frampton was earlier this month,and that gives indirect links to the original discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive173#Paul_Frampton from 2013 and a helpful 2013 update Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174#Paul_Frampton from User:FreeRangeFrog. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• The IP editor (Frampton) again seems to think that the actions of an American court have higher standing than the actions of a court in a different country. That's just not how it works here. Again, we can relay what both courts did (as reported in independent secondary sources). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am the same person as 67.6.182.89 but I am not Frampton. I am in Colorado and Frampton is in England. 75.166.38.5 (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If the other country has a high rate of corruption, that is how it works here; we give more weight to the American court's actions, because it is a more reliable source. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Court actions, in any country, are primary sources. We should be using reliable secondary source (reports of such actions), if necessary highlighting the different stances taken.Martinlc (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee: so who will edit the article? 75.166.38.5 (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor has been asked repeatedly to present evidence supporting his contentions and has so far simply refused to do so. Indeed he hasn't even defined what he means by "an unestablished fact in the view of the American court". The sources he has referred to have only discussed a US civil court ruling concerning breach of contract by Frampton's university. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The story is plainly related at [15] and the appeal court decision is a public record. Dr. Jones has repeatedly refused to say what he would want his article to say about him if he had been the victim of such a scam. Meanwhile Dr. Jones has repeatedly edited his own article which he obviously prefers to be a hagiographic summary of his own favorite accomplishments. 75.166.19.136 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

three edits in ten years, and none of them undue is probably the least hagiographic I have ever seen. I didn't know who he was till now. -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That is absurd, because Frampton's article under discussion is obviously less hagiographic. 75.166.29.132 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the IP editor has been digging through my biography and edit history he will know that I have spent a considerable amount of effort dealing with hagiography and vandalism at this page. In 2010 the page was almost entirely the creation of Frampton himself operating from a range of different accounts and also making IP edits. Then in 2012 the news of his arrest broke, and I kept it off the page until it was reported in reliable sources. In 2013 there was a massive edit war by anti-Frampton partisans, culminating in the remarkable version of the page you can find at [16], and this only stopped after I raised the problems at this page, various senior editors weighed in, and eventually the main attack editor was permanently banned. Since I have a minor connection with Frampton through Brasenose College, Oxford and the Department of Physics, University of Oxford (and have in fact met Frampton on a handful of occasions) I was regularly accused of whitewashing the page in an attempt to protect Frampton's reputation. In reality I have simply edited in accord with the core principles of seeking sources and applying due weight, and while I do not always get this right I don't think I have made a major error so far. I would, of course, be delighted if more experienced editors took an interest in this page, as it can be difficult whem most of the editors and both obviously partisan and terribly inexperienced. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I read your article and its talk page once, and have not looked through your edit history. Why do you refuse to say what you would want your article to say about you if the same scam had befallen you? 75.166.29.132 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it has no bearing on how we edit Wikipedia articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me or does Armond White strike anyone else as problematic in several ways? The biggest problem, to me, seems that his page is being used to make vicious attacks on other living people, including multiple accusations of racism and fascism. There is little in the way actual biographical detail, and instead seems to be dumping ground for personal attacks and other invective. Not really sure where to even begin on cleaning this up, though I did remove a huge quotation that was copy-pasted into the article. Is it just me, or are these attacks BLP violations? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, it's not you. Holy moly. I'm looking at this too--huge bloating, opinions lacking secondary sourcing, namedropping...I may "prune" this some. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:List of supercouples#Requested move: Move back to List of fictional supercouples. It concerns whether or not living people should be included on the list. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear: This move discussion concerns whether or not real-life people should be on the list. If you really have no problem with the list reverting back to how it was years ago (the inclusion of real-life people), then (going by the current lean of the move discussion) there is no need to comment. If you do have a problem with it, then now is the time to comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The Birth Date is not 1974, but April 1975— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.76.152 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source supporting his birth date? Meatsgains (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've pruned this considerably: article suffered from lack of neutrality due to likely COI editing. I've tagged it as such; if one or more of you can have a look and check it for neutrality etc., perhaps that tag can be removed. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done some heavy editing and reorganizing both with the accolades and criticism. I've also removed the tag. Additional eyes are welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

vandalism -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.125 (talk • contribs)

The article is now protected. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss lawmaker)

This person is NOT a swiss "lawmaker" since he is NOT member of Parliament, which holds the legislative power.

This person is ONLY a Town Council member (Conseil communal in French).

I have already added some modifications in the "Life" section and thoroughy referenced them.

Please CHANGE THE TITLE in order to STOP this MISinformation, on the basis of my modifications and its sources/references/citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Geneva (talk • contribs)

You are disputing the disambiguating description "lawmaker"? What would you propose as a disambiguator? --ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

How about we move the page to Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss politician)? Psychotic Spartan 123 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like some extra eyes please on the slew of recent edits to Gerald Ronson, all of which seem to be with the intention of extending the coverage we already had of his criminal conviction. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fix attempted. I hope this works. Collect (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello I am working with Dr. Sam Chachoua's team to create a relevant and factual wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Chachoua

The page that is up now is incorrect and has multiple libleous citings on it that we request removal of.

The descriptive owrds used in his current "biography" are highly negative in the terminology and it is a labelous action on the part of whoever is posting that content.

let me know what I need to do.

I have submitted a picture.

I have all the links and information we would like to put up.

I am new to wikipedia and have not used it.

I do not know how to "cite" the information- I cant find an easy way to attach a reference site to the content.

If anyone can help me understand how to create this page, I would be most appreciative of your time!!

Sean— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maritmemaine (talk • contribs)

Before you do anything else, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID.--ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the quack who claimed to have cured Charlie Sheen of HIV, despite the fact that he still tests positive, right? I have news for you: Wikipedia is not interested in promoting these kinds of practitioners. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy, that is an unwarranted personal attack on a newbie. Please reconsider your comments.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no personal attack, only unequivocal words. Delta13C (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You gotta wonder, who'd want a biography like that up on Wikipedia? I mean, can't the team figure out how we work, and that the article would not resemble something like this for long? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Re "libleous", I refer you to Wikipedia:No legal threats --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am concerned that this article does not even meet GNG, per living subjects notable only for one event. Please discuss on article's talk page. Delta13C (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be right. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Jonathan Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is an autism "cure" advocate, and unsurprisingly the article majors on how wrong he is and how much the autism community hate him for it. Much of it is he-said-she-said style recounting of spats with other autistic people. I think the article would be twice as good if it was half as long. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• The article Abhay Sharma is about an Indian former first-class cricketer. It was started on 20:17, 19 January 2016‎ by Dee03. At 01:02, 2 February 2016‎ it was {{db-g7}} tagged for "speedy deletion by author request", but not by Dee03 but by AbhaySharmaCric "I requested deletion of this page as it speaks about me.", who claims to be the subject of the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate speedy tag, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to edit the article that contained skewed and incorrect information by editing the following paragraph.

"On August 9, 2014, Wilson shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, which sparked considerable unrest in the town, as well as protests nationwide.[5][6] Wilson was named as the officer who killed Brown on August 15.[7] In March 2015, a report by the Justice Department corroborated Wilson's claims that Brown reached into Wilson's car and struck Wilson.[8] Wilson has said that this shooting made him "unemployable" and that he was turned down from a Ferguson Police Department job after being cleared by a grand jury.[9]"

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) intervened and removed the accurate edits.

The edits including quoted information about the sequence of events as told by several news sources. The article as it currently reads is libelous and is subject to being flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.116.224 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Es Devlin has been the subject of a load of promotional editing by people who don't understand WP. I did a bunch of cleanup, but if there are any theatre-lovers who watch this board, it could use some attention. It is a shame our article on someone like this is so crappy. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if the User:Swapnil Pathre has a question but I have removed a dump of the article placed here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

kareem kandalayam S/o Abdul kader, Dharmmathadka kasaragod kerala india. studied SDPHS dharmathadka, and worked ind dubai, eranakulam and saudi arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummick (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ummer kader kandalayam dharmathadka kasaragod kerala india studied plus two, ITI electrical kanhangad, neleshwar. worked in india Bangalore, saudi arabia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummick (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The article has 7 references. One is a primary source for her employment details. The remainder are non-notable blogs criticizing her glyphosate study (note that glyphosate is the base for Monsanto's main product, RoundUp herbicide). The final reference, from Keith Kloor for Discover is perhaps not as reliable as it may appear, given that recent FOIA records landed him in this article: Journalists Failed to Disclose Sources’ Funding from Monsanto.

I bought this to AfD, and at her talk page, asked Sarah SV to weigh in on PAGs. She said:

"No self-published material is allowed in BLPs, even if written by an expert in the field, unless the author is the subject of the BLP". And: "See WP:BLPSPS, which is policy: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs."

"BLP is a strongly supported policy, and that part of it is very clear, so anyone can remove an SPS from a BLP. If someone restores it report it to an uninvolved admin or WP:BLPN."

Based on this advice, I removed the following blog posts in this edit: [17]

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/seneff-claims-gmos-cause-concussions/#more-38833

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/

• http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#.VrLfLsdH2V5 (Keith Kloor)

My work was reverted here by Kingofaces43, with the edit summary:

"Partial restore per WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGEBLP and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance. Edit caused undue weight and removed appropriate sources for a a fringe BLP in line with BLP policy."

Thanks in advance for any help with properly applying PAGs, petrarchan47คุก 05:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting at all on the content or the underlying dispute, but Discover is a reliable source and I don't think a blog post including this Discover author in passing amongst a long list of journalists criticized for an omission only tangentially related to this article is sufficient to cast doubt on its reliability in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Do check out the article, though, would you? I'm not sure she's notable. And her page is now an attack page. There is no underlying dispute - this is a matter of blogs used to attack someone whose page looks to have been created for this express purpose. I cannot keep the blogs out of the article with King et al around, but someone should do so. One day someone is going to take action against this website if it continues to host attack pages like this one. petrarchan47คุก 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll reiterate my post at AfD, but the article is appropriately sourced for a WP:FRINGEBLP. We can't violate WP:BLP and remove the fact that most of the subject's notability comes from controversial publications without the appropriate critcism of the fringe views. Sources such as blogs.discovermagazine.com are not truly self-published sources even though they have the term blog in the name. They are selected contributors for the website as opposed to an open blog anyone can post. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org is a recognized reputable source for dealing with fringe subjects and is also appropriate per WP:BLPSPS. BLPSPS does mention,""Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." We're basically looking at open blogs not being reliable, but sources that are considered professionals in some fashion, experts in the field, etc. that don't allow just anything to be posted in line with the policy. Both BLP and WP:PSCI policies are at play here, so editors need to take care in upholding both.

As a note for anyone else, the article is under GMO discretionary sanctions, along with a 1RR restriction that also includes some warning against trying to edit war once the WP:BRD process has begun. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything in WP:FRINGEBLP that allows substandard sources to be used to override WP:BLPSPS; just the opposite, it advises removing the fringe views of living persons outright. There are also a large number of editors who, disturbingly, see no difference between "fringe" views and minority scientific views, and grossly misapply WP:FRINGE because of that. Regarding SBM, I'm copying my own comment from the AfD:

There is a vocal group of editors who are in love with this blog, and insist it has editorial standards. I have never found any evidence of the sort; it seems like the "editors" are simply blog authors. The site also accepts outside submissions from absolutely anyone, and reviews those, which apparently has given rise to idea that its main authors are subject to editorial oversight. The submission guidelines for outside authors are here. I have never heard anyone argue that this site meets the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which it clearly does not. In extensive conversation wherein I've brought up this issue, editors repeatedly affirmed that it is "good" without saying how it is a scientific RS. In the context of a libel case against it, the Washington Post described it as "a nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group".[18]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A floating IP at Jamie Leigh Jones is really invested in adding claims that Jones has various personality disorders. They eventually produced a source which said this, rather than one that just said that her court opponent claimed it, but even if that claim is to be kept, I don't agree that it's appropriate to put her in the categories for people with these various personality disorders. The other members of those categories 1) were actually examined by doctors and 2) are criminals, and I don't think that this is strongly supported enough to justify the categorization even with (one) source in the text - the doctor in this case didn't actually examine her. What does BLPN think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We wouldnt use court records/transcripts to source claims as they are primary sources, but since there are reliable secondary sources that have reported on it thats not a problem. The information is relevant in context given the reason she was in court and why her accusations were rejected. So essentially your argument boils down to Original Research as to the quality of the diagnosis of her mental condition. Thats not something we do. Now I am the last person to encourage categorising people (my views on jew-tagging here are well known) however this is a bit tricky. The categories are named and the information that causes the subject to be listed in them is present and reliably sourced in the article. While it may not be nice, sadly the wikipedia category system does not allow us to differentiate between positive/negative categories in that manner. Her not being a criminal is irrelevant unless the category was named "Criminals with X". I suppose there is an argument that it places undue weight on the diagnosis. Personally if I wanted to make an argument against it, I would point out the category is named as "People with <mental illness>'" not "People diagnosed with". A past diagnosis of illness is not a reliable source that they currently still have the condition. Sure its a bit weaselly but it certainly serves the spirit of BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Any statement that "sadly, Wikipedia policy requires ___" should fall under WP:IAR and the policy should be ignored. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well quite. However to justify IAR you need to make a good case that ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia. Thats a bit difficult to make against background/administration edits - categories by their nature are to enable navigation of wikipedia and so are almost always technically an improvement from a functional point of view. Just not necessarily a moral/ethical one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In general th urge to use court records or other primary sources tends to occur when editors are seeking to go beyond secondary sources and add their own research. In the light of the large number of disputes that categories cause I would like to see good evidence that they were in fact used by readers.Martinlc (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording on the David Irving article is particularly troublesome as it stands; it blatantly says he is an 'English Holocaust Denier', without additional qualification, but a source. It doesn't go further to explain what exactly he denies, what it is he denies, just that he is an "English Holocaust Denier", as if that is the most notable thing about his career (which it isn't, if you've followed it throughout).

I have tried to re-word this so it reads "David Irving is an English author on WWII books...and is most recently notable for his views which minimise/deny the Holocaust" or something akin to that.

1.) David Irving is still alive, so this is a huge WP:BLP concern;

2.) We don't go around calling Stalin or Trotsky "killer of millions" in his biographical open; Why shouldn't David Irving's article be afforded the same courtesy, especially since he is still living? ;

3.) much of the page consists of original research

Is there any way to get it changed so it doesn't direct BLP so blatantly? 10-year old arbitrations are being referenced in an attempt to silence the debate, yet as David Irving is still alive, I can't help but see how the opening sentence is anything but blatant violation of BLP

(And I know that a lot of people here hate Holocaust negationists, revisionists and outright deniers, so please try not to think about that as you edit his article, for the good of wikipedia and for the good of neutrality everywhere).

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, he is an author who is primarily known for his holocaust denial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One user (of which another user has ungraciously accused me of being a sockpuppet of) has put it better than I ever could, copy and pasted below for your perusal:

*  *  *

To compare: *We don't call Adolf Hitler an "Austrian Holocauster" or "German genocider", or a "World War 2 starter" for that matter. We call him "an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) ... [and] effectively dictator of Nazi Germany, and [he] was at the centre of World War II in Europe and the Holocaust."

• We don't call Lee Harvey Oswald a "President killer" or "Kennedy shooter", we call him "an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."
• We don't call Judas Iscariot a "Jesus-betrayer" etc.

Even though all of the previously given examples are known primarily for one thing, it's just awkward to use a designation that in no way relates to a profession or occupation. It crosses WP:BLP1E. Anyhow, I don't plan on changing it myself. Just trying to help. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

*  *  *

It is in that spirit that I wish to see the David Irving article better reflect encyclopedic standards. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Waste. Of. Time. [19]. Not a BLP violation. See discussion talk as well. Here, the two users are just repeating what they said on talk... except this time Solntsa90 has managed to refrain from characterizing Holocaust denial as "heterodox views on the Holocaust".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been discussed lots of times in the past (including, from memory, in a formal RFC) and the consensus has been that 1) Irving is commonly described as a "Holocaust denier" in both academic/specialist works and the general media (there have been significant searches of references in the past) and 2) as a result, it's the appropriate term for Wikipedia to use to describe him. This topic gets raised about once a month or so, with the consensus on the talk page consistently being that the description remains appropriate. WP:BLP doesn't mean that we shouldn't describe people in a negative way if that's how they're commonly described. I agree that Solntsa90 seems to have an axe to grind here (as well as the above, "Irving didn't spend his life being 'Holocaust Denier', he spent his life as a historian and an academic, who later on, held views that some would label Holocaust Denial (at least, in the always funny European Courts they did)"). Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion from a less biased administrator who hasn't unsuccessfully accused me of being a sockpuppet before. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who asked you if Prisgezine was your sockpuppet or vice versa, seeing as how the two of youse showed up together at two unrelated controversial articles, pushing the same edits. Nick just suggested an SPI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What opinion would you like? The lead of articles should reflect the content. In biographies this will mean that people who have high profile controversies associated with their views/actions, may end up with negative statements. Irving's views are well known and publicised and there are numerous reliable sources that describe him as a holocaust denier - which is accurately reflected in the body of the article. Given its a highly controversial viewpoint I would expect it to be mentioned in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A second opinion is all I wanted (as I don't trust the other administrator very much), and I'll accept your assessment at face value, and refrain from further attempts to change the lede. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is some serious whitewashing going on at Mikael Ljungman, exemplified by this diff. Ljungman is described by Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet as Sweden's "most well-known financial criminal", with various convictions ranging from multi-million dollar fraud to arson. Yet Tore N Johansson has written a feel-good lead that does not appropriately summarize the article and does not even mention the reasons Ljungman is notable in the first place. The content of the article has been bloated with trivia such as campaign donations he made while living in the US or his patent applications, all without third-party sources. That violates WP:UNDUE, according to which his (former) tech companies and his crimes should be the focus of our coverage. My attempts to explain our guidelines on the talk page were countered by "all information about a person is interesting", which is not based in policy and - rather obviously - is a recipe for just this kind of feel-good fluff. I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look and explain why Tore N Johansson's changes are not acceptable. Huon (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is some problematic black-washing going on the living person biography "Mikael Ljungman". Mikael Ljungman are convicted for serious crimes and its well documented by reliable sources. He is released from jail. This article is about a living person why the article should be balanced and not a portrait for mudslinging. Huon want to focus the entire article on tech companies and crimes but are reluctant to include information about Mikael Ljungmans patent applications related to tech activities. There is two interesting and notable aspects of this contradiction between criminal and inventor. And the facts are published in reliable sources and edited by other contributors. If a person have been released from prison its portrayed by Huon as a feel-good lead. When a convicted criminal such Mikael Ljungman appears as a parliament candidate its a notable fact in it self. His earlier and recent political contributions and activities could not be described as trivia. Even if Mikael Ljungman first was notable for criminal activities he is also notable for his political activities and for his patent applications. His recent political activities, education in political science are supported by third-party sources. Mikael Ljungmans political activities are also events that have taken place after Mikael Ljungmans convictions why it does appropriately summarize the article. Huon shows bias when he express that the content of the article has been bloated with trivia such as campaign donations and patent applications. To exclude such information violates WP:UNDUE, according to which his (former) tech companies and his crimes should be in focus together with political activities, patent applications, political activities on social media. My attempts to explain our guidelines on the talk page were countered by if you once becomes notable as a criminal the person will always be ported as just a criminal on wikipedia, which is not based in policy. Its a recipe for black-wash and mudslinging. I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look and explain why Huons changes are not acceptable.Tore N Johansson (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC) — Tore N Johansson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:Tore N Johansson has made literally no edits outside Mikael Ljungman and its talkpage (excepting only the post above). It seems safe to call him an extreme SPA and to ask him on his page to disclose any conflict of interest he may have. He was asked politely in April 2015 to read WP:PSCOI, but did not comment. I'm going to ask him more directly if he has a conflict of interest, and inform him of the terms of use with regard to paid editing. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

The idea that patent applications sourced to the applications themselves need to be included for the inclusion of his much-covered crimes not to be WP:UNDUE is a fundamental misunderstanding of weight in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Setting aside possible (and likely) COI, this is my opinion of the article itself: the only third-party sources about Mikael Ljungman that I can find are some Danish newspaper articles about some of his crimes, and Swedish newspaper articles about his criminal record in relation to his candidacy for the Christian Democrats in the 2014 Swedish parliamentary election. (Apparently he didn't get in.) Most of the latter articles are from 15 June 2014, when the news about the candidacy broke. So the criminal record, especially in relation to the parliamentary candidacy, is the only thing about the subject that's possibly notable. It's what the article should focus on — if we're to have an article. Myself, I don't think we should; let's delete it. I call out, as typical tabloid exaggeration for effect, Aftonbladet's claim that he's such a well-known financial criminal. Aftonbladet tends to be sensationalist. Now, my personal impressions aren't a reliable source, but just for ambiance: I live in Sweden, I follow the news, and I had never heard of him. Note also that the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

There is an open RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox which proposes to call Bernie Sanders Jewish. This is supposed to be done only for religious Jews, and only if they publicly identify as such. Sanders does not. Consequently, only one outcome would not be a clear BLP violation and the RfC needs to be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you do realize that his press kit states "religion: Jewish?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I realize that when explicitly asked about his religion two weeks ago he said some vague humanistic things followed by "This is not Judaism."[20] --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware of the consensus established at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and note that "Jewish" is explicitly listed as a special case. Many commenters in the RfC do not seem to be aware of the standards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I will comment briefly about this controversy, which I am keeping at arm's length these days. Sammy, if you have not read this article in the Washington Post, please do, because it is a very in-depth report about this stuff. Additionally, I will only say that it is extremely perplexing why so many Wikipedia editors are glad to parenthetically mention denomination in infoboxes, and to mention conversion dates parenthetically, and to mention previous religions parenthetically, but when it comes time to say "Jewish (inactive)" or "Jewish (secular)" or "Jewish (non-observant)" then that is some great offense in their estimation. I have already made clear that I support such a parenthetical in this instance. If such a parenthetical is not included, then saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox would be highly misleading and contrary to the subject's own caveats --- and thus an obvious BLP violation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just read it. It does not identify Sanders as of the Jewish religion, quotes him demurring on the subject, and quotes his brother as saying he is not of the Jewish religion. Note there is confusion between Jewish ethnicity an Jewish religion. The RfC result said "Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother. This is not one we should leave to democracy. The discussion should be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And @Anythingyouwant: it is not a "great offense", but forgive me for thinking we should not be misstating a major US Presidential candidate's religion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that we should not misstate it. If you haven't studied WP:Primary yet, it may be worth a look, since the press kit is a primary source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy1339, please be aware that (a) the RfC at Template talk:Infobox to which you link explicitly says The determination if something is a religion or a non-religion should be based on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, per WP:No original research. (b) in his his press kit, Sanders describes himself as "Religion: Jewish" (c) the Washington Post article to which you link says "Sanders would be our first Jewish president." (d) yet absurdly, you try to argue that "Sanders does not identify publicly as Jewish." What the hell are you smoking? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: You are misreading that RfC result. It is about whether Judaism is a religion, and "Jewish" is explicitly mentioned as a special case. The guideline for whether someone can be categorized in a religion is WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement that "Sanders would be our first Jewish president" is equivocal as to the sense of "Jewish" (culturally vs. ethnically vs. religiously). The press kit is a primary source and therefore of questionable utility by itself (we don't even treat a secondary source in isolation from other relevant sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if he clarified this tonight or, for our purposes, made it more confusing, but he seems to be differentiating between practicing a formal religion, and practicing spirituality:

[Sanders] delivered some of his most candid remarks on religion and spirituality at the CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall on Wednesday evening, saying that his "very strong" Jewish faith underpinned his belief in social justice...It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is. Everybody practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings...So my spirituality is that we are all in this together and that when children go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street, it impacts me. That's my very strong spiritual feelings."[21]

Will that fit in an infobox? petrarchan47คุก 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan, that source also says: "By winning even a single delegate in Iowa, Sanders, a secular Jew of Polish ancestry, has now won more delegates than any non-Christian presidential candidate in history." The word "secular" would fit nicely in parentheses, in the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 Watch the video. The secondary source editorializes it as "his Jewish faith" but he never says anything of the kind, referring instead to "my spirituality" with no mention of Judaism or God. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. You're right Sammy, I watched the video. The question mentioned Judaism, but the answer didn't. Oy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: what do you have to say to Sanders' explicit statement that what he believes "is not Judaism"? Do you propose to ignore RSes that don't conform to your opinion? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we really treating passing comments made on the Jimmy Kimmel Show and taken out of context as reliable for the purposes of WP:BLP now? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you challenging the reliability of the source (The Washington Post)? Nobody's suggesting calling him "agnostic"—we're suggesting leaving the parameter blank because the answer is obviously not black-and-white. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• We do need to fix this issue of people who are culturally Jewish but are not religious. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support closing RfC as a BLP violation and also per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, which says

"The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."

As far as I can tell, all but a couple of the support !votes are based on the affirming the consequent fallacy:

1. If Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism), then Bernie Sanders is Jewish.
2. Bernie Sanders is Jewish.
3. Therefore, Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism).

The fallacy consists of assuming that being a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism) is the only way to be Jewish. Other ways of being Jewish include but are not limited to::

• Members of an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East. See Jews.
• Through matrilineal descent as defined by Halakha. See Who is a Jew?#Jewish by birth.
• Descendants from a population bottleneck of 350 individuals who lived about 600-800 years ago. See Genetic studies of Jewish origins and Medical genetics of Jews.
• Those who have the right to live in Israel and to gain Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
• Various definitions used by racist groups for the purpose of targeting Jews for persecution or discrimination. While these definitions are generally considered invalid, they are vaid for the specific purpose of prosecuting members of such groups for Hate Crimes.
• Those who either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, named the Cohen Modal Haplotype and thus are claimed to be/may be descended from Aaron, brother of Moses, in the direct lineage from Levi according to the tradition codified in the Tanakh. See Y-chromosomal Aaron.

After discarding the support !votes that are logically fallacious, pretty much all that is left are arguments that a press packet is a reliable secondary source and several outright refusals to even read WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I still don't get your point, Bernie Sanders is Jewish because his mother is Jewish, does that make things clearer for you in any way? He also identifies as jewish, as per BLPCAT. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here is an example of Sir Joseph engaging in the exact logical fallacy I list above: "If someone is Jewish, their religion is Jewish"[22] In my opinion, this is a clear BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? If someone is Jewish, their religion is Jewish. If someone is Muslim, their religion is Islam. If someone is Christian,their religion is Christianity. See how it works? You can try to be pedantic, semantic, academic, and all the other ics in the world, but when someone says, "I am Jewish" they mean to say, "The religion I wish Guy Macon to associate me with is the Jewish religion on Wikipedia, for my religion is Judaism/Jewish and I am a Jew." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ever heard of ethnicity? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant considering that Sanders is Jewish, for what all consider Jewish to mean. All the other points are red herrings for the topic of Sanders' infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that isnt necessarily true. A person can both identify as ethnically Jewish, as in I am a Jew, and not a follower of Judaism, as in I am an atheist. And absent the Washington Post specifying Jewish by ethnicity or by religion I dont think that source quite cuts it for saying his religion is Jewish. But I think the people arguing the press packet isnt "a reliable secondary source" are missing a more important point. I was under the impression that we go by self-identification in such matters, if a person says their religion is "Jewish", or "Christian", or "Rastafarian" then we say the same. The press packet on his Senate page is I think a straight-forward self-identification of religion as Jewish. nableezy - 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders BLP now establishes clearly that Sanders is a "secular Jew". He's also now in Category:Secular Jews. I suggest that people take a look at who else is listed in that category, and see what their infoboxes say. Just for perspective.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Three relevant wikilinks:

1. List of Jewish atheists and agnostics
2. Category:Jewish atheists
3. Jewish atheism

If people can be classified as Jewish atheists, then Bernie Sanders can be classified as "Jewish" without having a clear fill-in-the-blank answer for "Religion" in his infobox. Infoboxes are places exclusively reserved for clear, fill-in-the-blank facts. Mr. Sanders' religious identify is not such a fact. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Who said he's an atheist? He identifies as Jewish and for infoboxes and BLPFACT that is all that is needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

He says he believes in God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#cite_note-Sellers-217 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I see where I did not make my meaning clear enough. I am not saying that Bernie Sanders is an atheist. Instead, I am establishing the broader point that precedent on Wikipedia seems to be that a person can be "Jewish" while not at all identifying with the religion Judaism. If Woody Allen can be both Jewish and an atheist, then it's certainly true that Bernie Sanders can be both Jewish and not have a clear fill-in-the-blank for "Religion" in his infobox. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Joseph and others insist that if a religion can be established—in the broadest meaning of the word—then the infobox field should be filled in. Objections are varied, my own being that that both misleads the reader and, in the particualr case of Sanders, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT by highlighting an aspect of his life that he has downplayed and apparently plays a small role in his life. Joseph et al seem to believe that Infobox fields fall outside the scope of the WP:WEIGHT policy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just for the fun of it, someone should actually read the first sentence of the ethnoreligious article, it clearly states that those members of an ethnoreligious group share a common religion. "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If the dispute were over whether Sanders were Jewish or not. Which it's not. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Guy Macon seems to think it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Really? @Guy Macon: Do you believe Bernie Sanders is not a Jew? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Of course not. I have told Sir Joseph this multiple times, but he insists on stuffing words in my mouth. Any time that you read a comment by Sir Joseph that claims that Guy Macon holds a particular position or made a particular statement, just assume that it is a bald-faced lie and ignore it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
          • No one is arguing that Sanders is not Jewish. Everyone agrees that he is of Jewish descent, that both his parents were Jews, that he went to Hebrew school, had a bar mitzvah, spent some time volunteering at an Israeli kibbutz, that he frequently invokes Hitler and the Holocaust as inspirations for his social activism, and so on. He is indisputably ethnically and culturally Jewish. The issue is whether he is religiously Jewish. The counterargument is that he says he is not involved in "organized religion", that he calls himself a "secular Jew", that he has praised Pope Francis and said that some of the things he likes about the pope are not Jewish. Those are all points worthy of discussion. In response, I point out that in matters of religion and sexual preference, we insist on overt self-identification. Sanders self identifies in his press packet as "Religion: Jewish" and that is powerful. Attempts to dismiss this as an unacceptable use of a primary source are weak, since this is a perfect example of a case where a primary source is acceptable or even preferred, especially when it is confirmed by an abundance of secondary sources, and contested by none. Sanders says he believes in God although he has his own definition of the deity which is in no way incompatible with the range of Jewish religious thought. That puts to bed all theories that he is an agnostic or atheist. Yes, many sources discuss various aspects of his Jewish identity with varying degrees of skepticism, but not a single solitary reliable source says that he is not a member of the Jewish religion. Some editors have argued, forcefully and repeatedly, that he cannot be a member of the Jewish religion because he is not an active partipant in organized religion, which in Judaism, is the world of ritual observance, denominations, and synagogues. This ignores the fact that modern Judaism is not a hierarchical religion like Roman Catholicism, that it has no mandatory creed and does not excommunicate people for failing to carry out old rituals, go to a synagogue or immerse themselves in denominational disputes. The term "secular Jew" cannot be construed as a complete rejection of a Jewish religious identity, since another interpretation that religion is private and public policy discussion should be framed in secular terms is just as reasonable. Those who interpret his praise of the stances that Pope Francis has taken on social justice, economic inequality and human caused climate change as a rejection of a Jewish religious identity are seriously mistaken. He is not endorsing the divinity of Jesus or the virgin birth. Finding new ideas and common cause on sociopolitical issues with leaders of other religions is by no means a rejection of the Jewish religion, but rather a long and well established part of that religious tradition. In conclusion, I do not see any doubt that Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion. Given that he is one of 535 members of the US Congress, and as far as I know, every other such biography includes religious identity in the infobox, I believe that it is a mistake to exclude this information from the Sanders biography infobox. It is wrong and unencyclopedic, in my view, and the potential for negative press attention pointing out perceived unfair treatment of Sanders on Wikipedia is very great. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Give that man a standing ovation! Someone gets it. Guy Macon, I suggest you read what he says. We really need to put this to bed because it doesn't pass the smell test to me. What is good for 534 other members of the US Congress is good for Bernie Sanders the Jewish Senator from Vermont. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
              • The same issue I identify below about the press kit likely applies to the Congressional website (as well as Sanders' own pages) - they beg the question of "self-identification" since the information was more than likely filled out by aides of Sanders' or his PR agents to appeal to voters and put him in the best possible light without lying. There is clearly a means to say "Sanders is Jewish", but for WP, and specifically the "religion" field of the infobox, this is not a precise enough statement to work from knowing that it is not necessary self-identification and that Sanders has say, from his own mouth, a more nuanced take that "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox does not adequately capture. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
                • That's just plain stupid. Taking information from someone's personal government website, is selfidentification. Why do you feel the need to WP:OR as to why he would put Religion:Jewish? He said he's Jewish, that should be all that is necessary. Do you go to the religious communities in the middle of the US and verify that the Christian elected officials are thoroughly Christian enough or are they just pandering to their constituents? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
                  • It's not an OR issue. As stated below, if the only place where Sanders' religion was on his Congressional website, then that's good enough for BLP. But it's not. Editors have shown interviews/comments directly from Sanders that shows that he self-identifies his religion in a different way than what simply "Religion: Jewish" would imply. It's a contradiction, and thus it makes sense to avoid the issue in the infobox and explain in prose: "Sander's Congressional website and his campaign press kit identify him as having Jewish faith, but Sanders has explained in interviews that...". Which all can be sources (avoids OR), provides the two different stances (avoids NPOV), and makes sure we're getting the exact wording from the person of interest directly (avoids BLP). --MASEM (t) 16:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote or interview takes away the BLP or selfidentify that Sanders is Jewish, his interview is just how Sanders practices his Jewish faith. In addition, why don't we do the same for the more than 20+ Congresscritters in middle America catering to the religious right who are obviously lying about their religion, so we should not put their religion in their infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The key difference here is that the word "Jewish" has many possible meanings, and of importance here, one that relates to faith, and one that relates to ethnicity. In contrast, for Catholics or Christians, that's strictly a meaning of faith so there's no nuances there. Further, your counter-example is absolutely wrong to take in BLP: we cannot judge if people are lying if they make self-identifyng statements claiming one thing and there's no published counter-statements to challenge that. If a Congressman has self-stated they are Catholic, but "everyone" knows, in an undocumented manner, they never go to church or practice that faith, BLP still requires us to say they are Catholic. Here, no one is saying that Sanders is lying, or that his PR is lying, just that there is conflict between what he has said personally, what his PR team has published, and the nuances of the word "Jewish" that we should avoid over-simplification of the issue in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a problem here

Consider the following series of diffs:[23][24][25][26][27]

The first problem is that we have an editor who thinks that "saying 'he is Jewish' has exactly the same meaning as saying 'his religion is Judaism,' and likewise saying 'his religion is Judaism' has exactly the same meaning as saying 'he is Jewish.'"

The second problem is that several other editors agree with the above, they all are heavily involved in editing various pages about Jews and Judaism, and they have all gathered at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox. It doesn't look like sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry seems unlikely, but it is really odd that multiple editors would {A] come up with that oddly specific opinion and [B] strongly resist even looking at any source that disagrees. I suspect that they all got the idea from the same online blog or discussion group. As long as they hold on to this fundamental error regarding what the word "Jewish" means, they will regard any source that claims that someone is Jewish as being identical to a source that claims that their religion is Judaism.

The third problem is that well meaning editors stumble upon the resulting conversation, announce to all that they are wrong to offer personal opinions (about what the word "Jewish" means) and should simply follow the sources. They don't realize that the fundamental error regarding what the word "Jewish" means leads to a systemic misinterpretation of the sources. You can't quote sources that prove that most crows are black and few are white to someone who thinks that "black" and "white" are identical. They will simply see every "crows are usually black" citation as support for inserting "all crows are white" into Wikipedia articles. Alas, these editors are focused on BLP articles... --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In this specific case, the BLP subject, Bernie Sanders explicitly self-identifies as,"Religion: Jewish", says he believes in God, and talks about how religion and spirituality influences his work for social justice. And yet you deny that he is a member of the Jewish religion when no reliable source denies that he is a member of that religion. That is the core problem here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he self-identifies as a "secular Jew" who is "not actively involved in organized religion". That self-identification appears in reliable secondary sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, Jew-tagging season again. Can you link the specific sources they are using to support 'religion jew' please someone? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, here's the link you requested. And please be more careful about ascribing motives. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah thats no good for an infobox statement-as-fact. Its directly contradictory to other primary source statements. It could be included in the prose 'Bernie has stated his religion as Jewish (PR pack source) but when asked stated he did practice his religion (interview source). And so on. Prose has the ability to explain inconsistancies, infoboxs (and categories) are just flat 'This person is X' facts so they need to be 100% accurate on a BLP. No comment on motives, except when you have seen people Jew-labelled during elections as many times as I have, its hard to not suspect an ulterior motive. Whats worse is it happens from both sides, Jewish people want to claim one of 'theirs' and opponents want to label them in order to influence the voters who harbour anti-semitism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement Religion:Jew is a statement of fact, nowhere does it say how he practices and how much he practices. It just identifies, as per his presspack, selfidentify is valid and this should end this discussion. We don't go to all 534 other members of congress and verify their practice of their religion. We just identify the religion. Bernie identified his religion, he said I am a Jew. That is all that is needed to say Religion:Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Except he has given interviews where he directly seems to contradict this. Per BLP where contradictory or contested information, we dont use it, or we present both sides. Its not possible to explore this in an infobox, so it doesnt go in the infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Has he? Has he once given an interview where he said his religion is not Jewish? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"This is not Judaism."[28] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I find the term "Jew-tagging season" highly offensive and ask you reword that. Secondly, Bernie identifies as a Jew, his press kit identifies himself as a Jew. It is common knowledge that his religion is Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

'Common knowledge' is not a standard by which we make statements of fact on a BLP. You can make that argument on the BLP noticeboard and I gurantee you wont get far when it comes to contentious issues like religion or sexuality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the press kit really "self-identification"? Remember that we're talking about a work composed by people in his hire to make him look good for the campaign, so whomever wrote that may be looking to put Sanders' religion/ethnicity in the best possible light to get the most voters, and I think its reasonably evident that making Sanders appear to identify as "Jewish" as opposed to "secular Jew" is clearly the best angle to be taken, even if it is a stretch of the truth (that is, it's not "wrong" per se, but it creates the problem of exactness/precision that this dispute seems to be over). The amount of weight in the claim that the press kit is "self-identification" in the climate of the US election is a bit troubling. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Its been used in the past. It depends on how and why. Self-published material is considered generally reliable for the purposes of non-contentious/contested claims about the subject. Press Releases and other PR-related material released by the subject come under self-publishes sources. Unless there is contradictory information or obviously wrong info in them. In this case there would appear to be contradictory info - statements by the subject indicate he is not religious, so I wouldnt accept a press release as evidence of something that is very contentious (as religion, and Jewishness in particular is). Its just a no per the BLP policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the way I see it. It's not self-published by Sanders, it's self-published by the campaign of "Sanders for President 2016", which is not the same entity as Sanders himself. They are marketing him to look attractive to voters. There's a filter on that information that makes it very questionable to call it as self-id for the person specifically. They're not lying or being obtusely false, but they are spinning information that as stated conflicts with stated that are self-identified by Sanders himself, and in this type of case, the latter should take priority. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Absent any other information or anything contradictory I would probably see little problem with using the press kit. Its at least something he would have to sign off on. However he has given interviews and made statements (the washington post and lifezette ones) in interviews that can be read as directly contradictory, so I would use nothing in the infobox (we dont have to fill it in) and if necessary explain in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. If we only had the press kit and no further statements, it's fine to go from the press kit. But we have conflict between what Sanders has said and what his press kit says, and that begs analysis of how self-identified the press kit is, and as such, it's best to omit or leave for prose to discuss in depth. --MASEM (t)

The press kit should be enough for self-identification. Furthermore, that is not the only source to say he is Jewish. I am really just at my wits end here trying to post that Bernie's religion is Jewish. I imagine in a few weeks time, CNN reporting "Wikipedia shows why they will never replace a real encyclopedia, when they refuse to identify that Sanders is a Jew." It is WP:COMMON that his Religion:Jewish, his ethnoreligion is Jewish, his identity is Jewish, his culture is Jewish, I'm not sure what else we need. He's from Brooklyn, I'm sure he drinks borscht for all I know. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If there were a field in the infobox for ethnoreligion or culture then I would say go ahead and simply insert "Jewish" without elaboration. But we're talking about a different field.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are contradictory sources then the information should not be in the infobox which is for clear cut information. If it need explaining then it belongs in prose only. In my opinion. HighInBC 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no contradictory sources. That is the issue. People are confusing religion and practice of religion. He is Jewish, he may not practice his religion the same way some other Jews do. Same way Trump or 534 other members of Congress don't practice their respective religions. We don't ask each member of Congress how they practice their religion, we just identify their religion, and put it in the infobox. That is all. In the article we mention the nuance of his religious beliefs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to assume that because Sanders is ethnically Jewish, whatever religion he practices is some degree of Judaism. If he believes god was birthed from a golden egg or born to the Christian's Mary, that would not be Judaism. Religion is not genetically inherited. Aside from the press kit I haven't seen any evidence he practices Judaism. D.Creish (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He said he's Jewish, so that should be enough. In this article, which is a RS, it says he's Jewish, so that is in addition to the press kit, plus Sanders is quoted as saying "I'm proud to be Jewish" ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/bernie-sanders-jewish-new-hampshire-primary/index.html ) This has really gone on far enough. You have no evidence he practices Judaism? Good for you, that's not what the infobox is all about. Are you going to go investigate the practices of the 534 other members of Congress and see how they practice religion? The infobox is again, not how they practice, it is a box for info, to identify the religion, in this case, it is Judaism. If you want to say if he practices, add another line in the box and fill that one out, but just to identify, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind as you read and respond to the above that Sir Joseph thinks that saying "he is Jewish" has exactly the same meaning as saying "his religion is Judaism," and likewise that saying "his religion is Judaism" has exactly the same meaning as saying "he is Jewish."[29][30] You can't quote sources that show that water is wet to someone who thinks that "wet" and "dry" are identical. They will simply see every "water is wet" citation as support for inserting "water is dry" into Wikipedia articles, claiming all along that "there is no contradictory source." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ha! I see we're still going around in circles with Sir Joseph the Tautological, and will forever and ever, Amen. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm considering writing a a Wikipedia article on the Italian composer/record producer Roberto Danova, most of his success came in the 1970s/80s when he had many European hits - including the million seller 'Lady In Blue', He is also credited with co- writing a song 'Sweet Little Rock n Roller' which reached number 15 in the UK charts for Showaddywaddy in 1979. Danova was very influential in the careers of Irish singers Joe Dolan and Johnny Logan and wrote songs recorded by many well know singers such Tom Jones and Engelbert Humperdinck. He also composed the music for, and produced, a successful stage show 'The Phantom of the Opera on Ice' which toured Europe with the Russian Ice Stars. A couple of questions I would like to ask editors are; 1. Before I start the task, would he be considered 'notable' under Wiki bio criteria? 2. References are hard to find for his 1970s/80s chart hits as they varied from European country to country. There are hundreds of videos of his recordings featured on YouTube, but I know these links aren't usually acceptable to Wikipedia, so what in your views would be the best sources of information? Thanks for any help, Alfshire (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been some back-and-forth editing to remove, and then restore, lots of negative content about Seneff's research sourced in large part to blogs. See for example this edit in which some of this content previously removed on NPOV and BLPSPS grounds [31] was restored because the sources that content was cited to were "appropriate...for a a fringe BLP in line with BLP policy." I would like to know what other editors think about whether or not this content violates any BLP related guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In this edit to the section dedicated to her work, from an interview in Alternet about her research on glyphosate and her conclusions regarding autism and gluten sensitivity, the summary "some scientists say she's a quack" is a problem. This is the epitome of cherry picking, and for a BLP, it is offensive to me that this would be the choice quotation. If for some reason there is justification to use the Alternet piece, and if for some reason the only salient bit is what others think of this scientist, may I recommend you instead use the quotation that describes her as "very controversial"? I would also note that although you've changed the heading from "criticsm", the content of the section clearly focusses only on criticsm, giving ample space to these details and literally none to describing her work, making the new section heading misleading by falsely indicating that this is no longer an attack page, but an encyclopedic article. petrarchan47คุก 14:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Describing her "work" -- i.e., the part where she pretends to be a biologist -- would mislead our readers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Referring to her work as "pretending" makes clear that you have strong feelings against this person, and for this reason I would recommend you allow more neutral editors to decide how she is described. You truly believe that to call her a quack, rather than controversial, as you indicate in this edit, solves some problem of "misleading the reader"? I'm going to revert to the more neutral version, and hope other editors keep an eye on the POV pushing at this BLP. petrarchan47คุก 14:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

footnote 31 is simply a hate-filled reference that does not approach an objective review of the subject book. how did this get included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c0:8001:d050:ec70:8c60:dfa6:57f5 (talk)

Presumably, by being written by a distinguished professor of philosophy and contributor to the Chronicle OfHigher Education, among the more notable sources for discussion of books of this sort.MarkBernstein (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Could someone who reads German run an eye over the sources for Bert Wollersheim please? I've removed an unsourced section but I'm tempted to cut further. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Smash it - the sources are highly tabloid journalism in nature, and some do not even support the claims asserted. "Rp-online" has lots of "celebrity stuff" and http://www.rp-online.de/kultur/buch/chicago-am-rhein-aid-1.2611696 , for example, is a book review which basically starts: "In the 70s, pimps and gamblers in Cologne committed more than 50,000 crimes each year. These small-time criminals were called "Kings of the ring" and are part of the folklore of Cologne." (simplified translation) and is used as the source for the claim "(Dusseldorf) where he worked as a barber for stars like Dieter Thomas Heck and Rex Gildo. This is also how he made his first encounters with red-light district patrons like Heinrich Schäfer." As the cite provides not a whit of support for the claim made, and is likely not WP:RS for any claims of fact at all, much less meeting the requirements of WP:BLP I think this entire BLP is likely to fail scrutiny. "Vox.de" also fails - it appears to be a TV station marketing "celebrity gossip and images" more than being a journalism site AFAICT. In short - the person may or may not be a major pimp, but WP:BLP requires far better sourcing than I found here (especially when one source has nothing remotely approaching the claim made it is used to support). Collect (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Collect, would you mind if we move this discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Wollersheim? ϢereSpielChequers 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I joined Wikipedia to fix the ongoing terrible edits of one Carmalita100 to my daughter Carsen Grays biography. she is expecting her first child and this woman I believe to be named... writes terrible things about her. I don't know why as she does not know my daughter but I have had enough. It is out of control. She defames her on every social media site possible any my daughter has never met her. please remove my daughters biography as I cannot figure out how to remove the bio or I would have done it already. Thank you.

Mamafixit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamafixit (talk • contribs) 05:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I am Carsens mother and I would like to have her bio removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible. There is constant defamation and horrible entries made by a Carmalita100. I would remove the bio myself but cannot. I loined Wikipedia just to stop the constant horrible edits.m Please remove it as soon as possible and you might consider removing the offending user from your site. Thank you. Mamafixit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamafixit (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor who added the "information" has now been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. The article has been nominated for deletion and will probably be removed in a few days. It can't just be deleted on the spot -- Wikipedia is very bureaucratic in the way even simple things are done. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Carsen Gray

Hi there. I wrote a report regarding the deliberate sabotage of Carsen Grays bio. I want this page removed. I am her mother and the constant sabotage is causing her stress. She is expecting her first child and the woman who keeps doing this to her page even wrote about her pregnancy on Wikipedia. Carsen has a right to live without this causing her worry when she has a child on the way. Carsen would like the page removed as well. As long as there is this woman carmalita100 continues to harass her on this site there is no point in having it. I am wondering why this woman is able to continue to use your site when she uses it for the wrong reasons. Please remove the biography and it is my sincere hope that you will figure out a way to deal with this user. Thank you

mamafixit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.235.71.16 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have started a deletion discussion on the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carsen Gray. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Discussion combined with above section. Article deleted per discussion. "Dreams do come true, if only we wish hard enough." --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I am a little concerned by the sentence found under "4.1 legal issues" which states the following:

"Tyga was accused of pedophilia after direct messaging a 14 year old girl on the photo sharing social network Instagram."

The article that is referenced does not make mention of any allegations of pedophilia, nor do any other news articles I found about the incident. The article was simply stating that Tyga had been messaging a 14 year old girl via Instagram who he thought was 17 years of age - leaked messages show that she told him she was 17 not 14. I believe it is quite slanderous to have such an allegation on his Wiki page. Maybe we could change it to what can actually be shown in the reference, something like:

"In January 2016, a 14 year-old girl stated she felt "feel uncomfortable" after Tyga repeatedly messaged him via the social network Instagram. According to his manager, Tyga wanted to FaceTime her to "talk business and see her sing" – while sitting in the studio with producers. Text messages obtained by TMZ show that the girl claimed to 17 years old, not 14."

References: http://www.teenvogue.com/story/tyga-dms-underage-teen-on-instagram http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3385152/Tyga-contacted-underage-teen-scout-record-label-told-17.html#ixzz3zTzBzljY http://thefix.ninemsn.com.au/2016/01/06/10/15/tyga-says-he-only-asked-14yearold-to-facetime-to-see-her-sing#8WQgZIjJjwP0lXHt.99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.68.151 (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have edited to remove the problematic statement, however its trivia sourced to the mail online and teen vogue. I have no objection if anyone wants to nuke the entire section. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nuked without prejudice. --Malerooster (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I was going to remove it myself if someone else hadn't. Meatsgains (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Gary Anandasangaree

The following statement is inaccurate and libelous.

"However, LTTE supporters openly backed Anandasangaree's conservative opponent during the 2015 federal election campaign.[12]"

The reference is poorly sourced. It has no relevance to this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajan loch (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's off topic info and I've removed it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A poorly written autobiography. I've trimmed some of the unsourced personal history, and know there's a lot more that can be done here. Any assistance, and eyes on the article, would be appreciated. Looks like it's been 'owned' by the subject for many years. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the subject of the page has been protecting it as his WP:OWN. I'm in the process of cleaning it up. Meatsgains (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Meatsgains. The concern has been explained to Mr. Pruden. If the ownership issue continues I'll request page protection. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

In Von Miller's High School bio it say's that he played with future Aggie teammate "Adolf Hitler"....Cyrus Gray

The vandalism, among some other inappropriate edits, we're reverted. Meatsgains (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Are the following statements appropriate for the lede of Vladimir Putin:

However, the economic development of Russia experienced a significant setback due to Western sanctions imposed in response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine during Putin's third presidential term. The IMF has estimated that about half of the decline in GDP in 2015 was due to sanctions.

and

In 2014, Russia was suspended from the G8 group as a result of its annexation of Crimea.

I feel these are recentist and undue weight, and not directly related to Putin himself. As such I don't think they are appropriate for the lede of a living person article. Athenean (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not clear on how this is suppose to be a BLP issue. Regardless of whether one thinks this should be in the lede or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well technically I suppose blaming a living person for the downfall of a countries economy would be a violation if untrue. I am pretty sure given Putin's control over Russia, no one else is to blame for Russia having sanctions, and sources can be provided, so I dont see how it is undue in his biography. His BLP is to have all the significant events in *his* life, and causing the economic downturn of an entire country probably counts as significant. Maybe not lead material though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That text may be appropriate for the body of the article but seems to me to be WP:UNDUE weight to have them in the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove it from the lead, if for no other reason than that the article is waaaaay too big, and anything questionable needs to be cut. I once spent quite a lot of time cutting that article back to size, but I'll let someone else do the honors this time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article's lede spends a lot of text talking about the economic successes under Putin during the 1999-2008 period. Somehow that's not UNDUE, even though it's way outdated. So how is putting in info about more recent developments UNDUE? Honestly, it seems like the only reason this info is being removed is because it's negative, whereas the info about the earlier period is being kept because it's positive and some editors seem to think that the whole article should be panegyric to Putin.

And one more time, how is this a BLP issue? There's absolutely nothing strange or undue about describing the performance of an economy that a particular country's leader is in charge of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If the lede spends a lot of text talking about the economic successes under Putin, then that should be cut back too. The article is huuuuuge. It may not be a BLP issue, but I'm just saying that it's way too long.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I agree that the article - and its lede - are wayyyyy too long. But this is actually not one of the things that should be cut. There's plenty other "fat" that can be trimmed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is clearlynot a BLP issue, but simply a cosmetic question. An article about Putin that does not explain the political and economic consequences of his policies would be simply a joke. Putin's article has long looked like a joke written by his propagandists, but if remove this the joke is entirely on us.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree -- and since someone has restored some of the propaganda, I've restored the paragraph questioned here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus Your point is well taken. However, I don't think anyone here is advocating the removal of the sentences in question. It just needs to be better positioned to avoid any such concerns of undue weight. The lead of the article is being used to personify an image or characteristic of Putin that is very recent in nature and undue. One clear-cut example of this is the fact that there is little talk of the annexation of Crimea itself in the lead (the version I am talking about is this). However, all we get in the lead is the West's reaction to that event. As if the West's condemnation is more important than the annexation itself. Meanwhile, that piece of information about the G8 summit was not even part of the body of the article. In other words, the bit about Russia getting kicked out of the G8 was placed deliberately in the lead, and the lead only, as an apparent attempt to place the international condemnation of his actions vis-à-vis Ukraine in the spotlight. That's indeed very concerning. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my 2p again, if his economic impact is in the lede I dont see how it needs to be more than a one sentence 'Putin is credited with both upturns and downturns of the russian economy' (example, it could be worded better). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that it needs to be kept short, but it also needs to be a bit more informative than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin is credited with both the upturn and the later downturn of the russian economy, which occurred early and late during his leadership of the country, respectively.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that that's not entirely true. Many sources credit the upturn on high oil prices which was not of Putin's doing. And many sources credit the downturn on BOTH low oil prices and Putin's economic and foreign policy, which *is* of Putin's doing. Even as we try to keep it succinct we still need to follow sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's some pretty naked POV-pushing going on in this article. NPOV requires that we not give an unbalanced portrayal of these matters. I have therefore removed the entire paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here are relevant questions: (a) do multiple RS credit Putin with political and economic successes by Russia in the past, and (b) do they blame Putin of current international failures, including the political isolation and the economic crisis in Russia? If they do, this is not a BLP violation, but something that must be noted per WP:NPOV. From what I read, the answer to (a) is "no" (the "successes" were simply due to high oil and gas prices), but the answer to (b) is "yes" (this is not only a result of the currently low oil prices, but also of his personal disasterous political decisions, such as war in Donbass, annexation of Crimea, "counter-sanctions" in Russia, and so on, and so on.). Fixing introduction accordingly would be fine, however simply removing this info goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see this link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rola_(model) The details of the problems that I list below can be found in the link above.

According to Wikipedia’s policy of biographies of living persons, the paragraph addressing Rola’s Father’s Arrest violates the policy above and “must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page” for the following reasons:

1. It includes “contentious material about living persons” 2. The information is “potentially libelous” 3. The sources and citations for numbers 13, 14 and 17 are invalid. The link to the webpages do not work. 4. It does not adhere to the policy of “Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.” 5. I would also like to raise the point that this information has the “possibility of being harm(ful) to (living subjects) (and this) must (always) be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” 6. Because Rola is a public figure, there is a lot of information out there to include about her, but this incident about her father’s arrest is not relevant to her career and/or to her celebrity persona. In fact, her father’s arrest has nothing to do with her talent or what she is famous for.

This material about Rola’s Father’s Arrest has been repeatedly inserted back in, after numerous efforts of trying to delete the information, resulting in the page becoming semi-protected and unable to edit. Therefore, I have no choice but to report the issue. Please help to permanently remove this information from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libera2016 (talk • contribs)

 Comment:: It should be pointed out that "Libera" is the management agency of Rola, so I think we should be wary of pandering to the agency's wishes to gloss over mentions of past "scandals" included in the article. Having said that, all of the details in the article about her father's arrest and prosecution in Japan are reliably sourced (archive links have now been added for the three deadlinks highlighted above, so they are all verifiable), as the story received extensive national media coverage in Japan. There's nothing contentious or libelous here, and the article text actually mentions how Rola's popularity and career was not ultimately affected by the incident. Also, I don't think it is accurate to say that her father's arrest is not relevant, since she made public statements and apologies about the incident. The only possible issue I can see with this article is whether too much space is devoted to the incident (i.e. whether this is WP:UNDUE), although I personally don't see it as excessive within the overall article, as it is proportional to the amount of media coverage it got at the time. --DAJF (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree in general about not letting COI editors have sway over the content. But this material is not sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Only if the incident had a notable effect on her career and this effect has been covered by reliable mainstream sources (aka. not blogs, forums or internet "news"), a short mention in context of her career might be appropriate. But anything more is likely undue WP:WEIGHT, especially regarding BLP-relevant content which requires "sensitive" and "conservative" handling. The now-removed coverage was far too detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree: undue weight.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the removed paragraphs are relevant to the article as they are about her father and only mention Rola tangentially. Even part of the removed section states that the arrest had little or no effect on her career. That said, Libera2016 needs to be sure to follow the rules here. They were repeatedly warned here before creating their account, so there is no excuse for their edit warring. The smart thing to do would have been to immediately go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the paragraph as it is not relevant to the subject of the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fletcher Mulnix

Please remove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muln5528 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The page was proposed for deletion here by me for lacking notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Bill LaTour, aka LaTour is having his page used to promote the defunct band The Squids. LaTour was never the lead singer of the Squids and there needs to be a page unto itself for this band. Bill LaTour is being harassed by this band and wishes to have any mention of this band not mentioned on his page OR if mentioned, briefly, as it should be - not entire paragraphs which are not relevant to his page. Mmmohhmmm (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Mmmohhmmm

The article The Squids was merged into LaTour as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Squids. There appears to have been multiple attempts to get around the AFD decision and restore the article at The Squids, ending up with that page being protected. Now it appears that there is an attempt to get around the AFD decision by including a full article about The Squids at LaTour. This isn't acceptable. However, removing all mention of the The Squids at LaTour also runs afoul of the AFD decision to merge content into that article. Briefly mentioning The Squids, therefore, at LaTour seems appropriate and sufficient. Deli nk (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want to help clean up Paul Atherton and the relating articles? I came across this via a draft article, which had issues with tone and sourcing. Going from there to Atherton's article showed that there was some serious issues with tone and sourcing, since there's a reliance on places like IMDb and other sites that aren't entirely usable to establish notability or even be overly reliable. The puffery is my main concern, however, with statements like "As a passionate protector".

There are some film articles too, Colour Blind (2009 film) and Silent Voices (2005 film), that need to be checked for notability and tone as well. I'm particularly concerned that these may not pass notability guidelines. I'm going to try to work on these, but I have mid-terms to work on for class. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Horrid sourcing - mainly harmless but some of the cites appear to have essentially no encyclopedic information about the person at all. Collect (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have neutralized a couple of obvious problems including the "passionate protector" claim.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Would any oppose a bold sweeping edit removing unsourced/poorly sourced content? I may take a jab at it. Meatsgains (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally think it's a good idea, if done following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle consensus. And if it is controversial and unsourced then clearly per WP:BLPSOURCES.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we can both agree the information we removed is uncontroversial and unsourced so there really is no reason to discuss on the talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: I agree with you, I meant to endorse your suggestion to go ahead and be bold removing what you deem inappropriate and poorly sourced. The article needs it. And only if your changes get reverted, then go to the talk instead, to get consensus before reverting back. Except of course that what is added back is clearly unsourced and controversial. In any case I have added the page to my watchlist. Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The page is looking a little better but still needs some work. I'm having a hard time confirming the notability of Simple (TV) Productions and Q&D Productions Limited, of which Atherton is managing director. Meatsgains (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I (just now!) noticed an odd edit to one of my user talk archives from 2007 [32]. Note that the edit summary is "(rm as per this section of WP:BLP)". Looking at the contribution history for that IP address, it entirely consists of going around in September-November 2007 removing all references to that incident from archives of places like ANI, Wikiproject talk pages, and user talk pages, with that edit summary.

I don't quite see what bothered the IP about those archived conversations. I'm tempted to restore it to at least my talk archives, as I like having complete archives. I also feel it's important to restore it to the ANI archive. However, if it really is a BLP violation, it obviously shouldn't be restored, and should probably be oversighted from all those places.

I guess I've got two questions:

1. Does anyone else see the BLP problem that the IP editor apparently saw in 2007?
2. Should archives, especially of official business like ANI, remain unchanged?

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it deleted not for WP:BLP reasons (although the attempt to ascribe a motive to someone is not the best move) but for an attempted WP:OUTING. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it should be oversighted? Removed from page histories? Because none of those archives are particularly visible to begin with, but if you know where to look it's all still there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest if that was the standard for oversight, then all of the SPI and COIN archives would have to be oversighted. And they have not done anything about this so I cant imagine its a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It was probably Hal Siemer himself or one of his followers who deleted it. You are allowed to put it back in your own talk page archives and I would do so immediately without asking anyone's permission. Prhartcom (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't spent enough time weighing the advantages and consequences of revdel to really express an opinion here. Thanks for asking! --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at this article I found one example where the statements in the article reflected the source content inaccurately, to the denigration of the professionality of the subject. I deleted and started a section on the talk page. Diff 1 ^[1] Then I found another. Diff 2 ^[2] And now I've found 2 more. "He has been (xxxxxcenscored) for his support of Michael Primero, whose PhD thesis alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards,[3] his defence of Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license due to research fraud and ethical violations[4]" Both of these statements are not supported by the sources cited.

I have not checked the rest of the article. Nor have I ID'd the editor/s involved.

I AGF however am aware that the subject of the article is a professor with a recent anti-vaccination PhD student. He describes some of the attacks in "Mobbing of a PhD student: lessons and responsibilities" ^[3]

I would go DE but do not have access to a acceptable account. I am out of time. Inaccurate and negative statements are currently in the BLP article. 124.171.109.96 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching things unfold with the Brian Martin (professor) article, and wrote this a day or two ago, and hope it helps...

This article is quite derogatory about Martin himself, and his work, yet this is not based on strong evidence. It seems to be mainly based on slanted views of a WP:SPA editor. I would think the article, and Talk page, contravene WP:BLP.

More clarification and context on Martin's publishing record is needed to better examine this situation, but details of Martin's key publications have been removed from the page several times: [33], [34].

Despite what is being said in this WP article, Martin has published many peer-reviewed journal articles. But, yes, he does publish widely in a diverse range of publication outlets, as many academics do. The article is portraying Martin as an activist, but to me he is just an "interdisciplinary academic" working in the area of "science and technology studies (STS)." He is a full professor employed full-time at a major university.

There is an amazing amount of criticism of Martin in the second paragraph of the article, relating to Michael Primero, Andrew Wakefield, and Judith Wilyman. Yet, material about Martins' STS professorial colleagues, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe and Jim Falk has been removed from the article with little discussion. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not that amazing. An academic going into bat for Wakefield is sticking his neck out big time, given that Wakefield's fraudulent studies with their concealed conflicts of interest and unethical unapproved tests on children caused a resurgence in a deadly and highly infectious disease. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative, yes, but not inaccurate. He has a history of misidentifying cranks as whistleblowers, and his supervision of the Wilyman PhD calls into question his fitness to supervise further PhDs, as that document used confirmation bias and conspiracist thinking in place of actual evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong words, but without any supporting references. This is reflective of the poorly sourced derogatory material in the WP article itself. Thankfully, a recent paper by Martin helps to clarify his position and some basic issues: "On the suppression of vaccination dissent", Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015 Feb 21(1):143-57, where Martin says:

• • "Dissent is a disagreement with or challenge to standard views ... and in practice scientific dissent remains risky."
  • "... the existence of suppression of dissent, does not necessarily mean dissenters are correct."
  • "The vaccination debate can be incredibly emotional on both sides."
  • "My own involvement in the vaccination debate is primarily as a defender of fair and open debate on contenious issues, given my long term interest in dissent. Personally, I do not have strong views about vaccination."

This type of material would provide more context and clarification, and I don't see why it is being excluded from Martin's WP article. Johnfos (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

1. IP 24.171.109.96 listed this article on this BLP discussion page, an IP editor. I suggest the *Brian Martin* entry on this BLP page here be removed as this seems IP 24.171.109.96's disagreement dressed up as a BLP issue.

2. As quoted above, Martin's supporters agree that Martin prides himself in dissent. In this context the article as it stands would be seen as mostly flattery not "denigration". Martin is an academic who encourages non-violent rebellion and as such "both notable and tres cool" according to his fans - talk page.

3. IP 24.171.109.96 obviously has not read the sources and claiming an "inaccurate reflection of source" is misrepresentation and a false reflection by this IP editor - talk page.

4. IP 124.171.109.96 removed the content on page she didn't like, and it was promptly reverted or re-entered by a senior WP admin.

5. IP 24.171.109.96 has stated "legal consequences" (against WP?) on talk page. OK!

6. She also states "Nor have I ID'd the editor/s involved", so does she intend to 'out' the identity of editors of article? Concerning.

Gongwool (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the IP has a point that the sourcing definitely needs improvement as it doesn't actually well support the statements in the article very well. For example the first source [35] mentions the student and what he did, but doesn't actually say he was criticised for it or anything similar. The reason why the journalist included it is obviously because the journalist felt it was another controversial student, but this is never stated. The second ref [36] is even worse. It doesn't even say Martin defended Wakefield. It only mentions the aforementioned student was connected to Wakefield. Actually the only part where it directly connects Martin and Wakefield is where it says Martin said he wasn't aware of the connection between the student and Wakefield. Note although it mentions the student and his connection to Wakefield, it doesn't actually say Martin was criticised for it (perhaps it implies it by giving Martin's defence that he wasn't aware of the connection between Wakefield and the student). Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I made the changes as requested by the IP just prior to your additional criticism after the fact. You may try and fix any inaccuracies you think in the para, but try not to whitewash it as there is a level of chameleon type nature to the subject that can't go unsaid, and the critical mainstream media reports about Martin's PhD supervision topic are now possibly over 20 articles. I think we're making progress from the original position of the IP wanted simply to return it to a puff peice as the IP ed would have preferred. If Martin would prefer to have the article removed he needs to say so, but I doubt it will return to it's puff-peice status, that would be improper. Gongwool (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The article still says he was criticised for his support for Wakefield, despite the fact the source doesn't say he supported Wakefield (so obviously can't say he was criticised for it). Note the IP's complain was left on the 4th February and it's now the 9th and whatever else they may or may not have wanted, they had a point that the statements in the article don't seem to be supported by the cited sources which is something explicitly required by BLP regardless of how many criticial sources there may be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a small problem here in that Martin actually did support Wakefield (e.g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-014-9530-3) and actually was criticised for it. I suspect that someone has switched or removed a reference at some point. We do need to eb vigilant here as both this article and the Wilyman PhD article are very likely to attract antivax activists. A negative overall tone in the Martin article is more or less inevitable given his continuing support for the bullshit OPV-AIDS hypothesis and his ongoing apologia for antivaxers. People who play a part in protecting deadly diseases against eradication do tend to come in for a bit of stick. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Support for Wakefield; Drafting submissions for AVN;

- http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/14/brian-martin-and-judy-wilyman-promoting-antivaccine-pseudoscience-as-dissent/

- http://luckylosing.com/2012/06/07/wollongong-uni-dr-brian-martin-judy-wilyman-how-far-is-too-far/

- http://luckylosing.com/2011/11/11/wakefield-innocent-deer-lied-earth-flat/

Gongwool (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

all concerns now attended to Prof Opvaids, no need to list in many wiki forums - Jewjoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewjoo (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There are media reports that North Korean general Ri Yong-gil has been executed in a purge. The news reports are full of qualifications and equivocations. Over the years, several stories of North Korean "atrocities" have been shown to be fabrications. I encourage experienced editors to take a close look and comment as sources emerge. I do not know what the truth is but I do believe that we need to be cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, My name is Amba Shepherd, someone that I do not know has made a wiki page up here on me. While I appreciate the effort, much of the information comprising my biography and discography as an artist is incomplete. We have made two edits here to correct and made contact with the editor to explain why but both edits have been reverted to the editors original incomplete page. Reasons given were that our edits were overly promotional however imo they merely contained my actual credits & accomplishments. That being said Im open to rewriting the facts in the tone of Wiki if required, and abiding by all the rules here. I would like to delete the page and recreate a new one that reflects me & my work properly. I look forward to hearing your advice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASMGMT (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ASMGMT. Although I have no immediate way to verify that you are actually Amba Shepherd, I will assume for the sake of discussion that you are that person and will respond accordingly. The only way that we would delete this article is if you are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article (in which case it would not be recreated), or if it consisted almost entirely of indisputable falsehoods. The fact that the article is "incomplete" is not an argument for deletion. A large majority of Wikipedia articles are incomplete. We expand and inprove incomplete articles; we do not delete them. As the subject of the article, you have a Conflict of interest and should not be editing the article yourself. Instead, you should propose very specific changes at Talk:Amba Shepherd, backed up by references to reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial began this week, and over the last couple of days anonymous IPs have been adding content to our article on Lucy DeCoutere (one of the plaintiffs) to declare her allegations discredited on the basis of what's been reported in the media. Of course, it's not for Wikipedians to decide whether her testimony has been nullified or not — it's for the judge to decide that, and our job on here is to wait for the judge's ruling and not jump to any conclusions of our own. Several editors have been involved in removing the content as not appropriate under our WP:BLP policies, only to have it continually readded again by more anonymous IPs. Accordingly, I applied one week of semi-protection to the article to clamp down on IP activity.

But now, one of them has registered a brand new user account just for the purpose of accusing me of being biased toward DeCoutere and against Ghomeshi — and another editor who has less than 50 contributions in their entire history, and hasn't edited a single time since June 2015, has also come back just to revert the disputed content back into the article while claiming in their edit summary that anybody who removes it is engaging in "bias to protect DeCoutere's interests". But, of course, it's about WP:BLP policy, and not about anybody trying to protect DeCoutere — it's simply not our role to reflect anybody's opinions about whether she's telling the truth or lying, until such time as a judge makes the final ruling on Ghomeshi's guilt or innocence.

Accordingly, this needs some extra eyes on whether the content is justified or not, and whether it's appropriate to lift the page up to full protection for a period of time rather than semi. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've already had to escalate the protection to full admin-only (1 week), because the sleeper account re-reverted another editor who reverted the sleeper's first reversion. If possible, I'd still welcome some outside eyes on whether the content is appropriate or not, particularly because while a talk page war hasn't broken out about it yet I'm predicting that one will erupt shortly. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

After looking at the article history and recent news reports, I share your concerns. The article is on my watch list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This article, about a man convicted of fraud, has been a trouble spot for years. It has repeatedly seen bouts of editing by sock puppets and SPAs (possibly all the same editor, but that can't be proven), with the effect of whitewashing the subject and inserting information not supportable by sources. Over the years a number of editors, including me, have kept watch on the article and stepped in to insist on rigorous adherence to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Another such bout of editing is now under way, carried out by Sure Footed1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but this time it seems that I am the only editor paying attention. I reverted a mass of edits once, asking for changes to be made incrementally so they can be evaluated; the editor simply undid my revert and continued. Since I have a policy of never engaging in one-on-one edit wars, I don't feel that I can do any more without input from other editors. It would be a black mark for Wikipedia for this article to turn into a mass of unsourced information after all the effort that has gone into maintaining it. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has stepped in and reverted the SPAs additions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey. I asked for inputs, and I was responding to Looie496's comments, and some guy named JzG came in and reverted me, claiming I should talk on the talk page. I *was* talking on the talk page.

I'm sorry that there was a lot of problems on that page. The BLP subject was running a lot of sockpuppets, and he clearly has some issues. But that's not grounds for reverting me like that, when I was trying to communicate. Sure Footed1 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ps: I'm not a SPA.

Your intentions don't really matter. The point is that edits need to be made in small increments, allowing time after each edit to check its support by reliable published sources. When large numbers of edits are made all at once, it becomes nearly impossible to fix any that are problematic. In most articles that wouldn't be a serious issue, but this article has seen so much abuse over the years that it is essential to rigorously check everything. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Looie496, but you need to take responsibility for that - after I asked you for cooperation help, and after I responded to your requests - you put this up here. The net-result was that people like JzG came up and unilaterally responded with a comment like this:

If you continue making substantial undiscussed changes to this article then you may be topic-banned or blocked altogether. Your edits are disputed, you now need to discuss them at Talk:Lester Coleman. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There's simply no way to respond to a person like this. Or to be more accurate, there's no way to communicate with him. He just came-up, wrote this, and *then* there's nothing I can do in response.

How about if you tell me what to do now? I'm labelled by this unilateral-communicator. And if you search on his name, he's not the kind of person to let-go of an argument, in fact, if he's wrong, it looks as-if he'd fight 10 times harder to win.

Thanks for the help. Great website. Sure Footed1 (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is what you should do now ... Stop making undiscussed and unsourced edits to the Lester Coleman article, which from your talk page, it appears you have been doing for two years. Then you won't get perfectly reasonable messages like the one you reproduced above. In response to that message, you might consider saying "I'm sorry, I won't do it again." Remember, you mustn't do it again, or you may be topic banned or blocked altogether, and you don't want either, do you? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Rita Pam Tarachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would somebody mind taking a look at Rita Pam Tarachi since there seems to have be some disagreement about certain article content. I tried discussing this at Talk:Rita Pam Tarachi#Activism and charity article talk page, but got no response until today when Adrian 8076 removed all the talk page posts [37][38][39][40]. For reference, the same editor also posted User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/January#Malicious/Personal attack a few weeks back, despite there being nothing wrong with my edits (which were later checked by Tokyogirl79). "Rita Pam Tarachi" was submitted and rejected twice by AfC reviewers due to notability concerns before being added directly to the mainspace by Adrian 8076 after the second rejection. The subject's notability is questionable per WP:GNG and I've been trying to find sources and improve it in good faith. Tokyogirl79 and myself have previously tried to explain these concerns to Adrian 8076, but so far there's been no response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• It might actually just be better to take this to AfD, Marchjuly. You've given the editor quite a bit of leeway and time to produce sourcing. There are only two decent sources on the article, one of which refers to her only in passing. I'll post a rundown of the sources on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79: I figured AfD would be the last resort and was going through WP:BEFORE to make sure. In addition, I didn't want it to seem as if I was nominating the article at AfD out of spite because of the This is the same behaviour that discourages people from editing on Wikipedia statement and general tone of Adrian 8076's first post on my user talk. However, I have been unable to find anything on Tarachi other than minor mentions and social media stuff. This, of course, could just mean reliable sources do exist per WP:NEXIST, but I have just been looking in the wrong place; on the other hand, it could just mean she simply does not satisfy WP:GNG at this time per WP:TOOSOON. The more I try and search, the more I think it's a case of the latter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• I've asked around a little and posted at the Nigeria WP talk page, just in case there are sources that we can't find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit by a non-English-language native added information about conviction for corruption of a minor, somehow involving a sister too, which seems to have some basis in fact. The amount of detail and the wording should be reviewed. I'm not familiar with exact standards and the sources are in French language. --doncram 20:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. It's very poorly written and very derogatory information about a living person. If someone who speaks French would go an review the two "sources" for the alleged information, it may be that my edit should be reverted and the text copy-edited. But until then, it seems preferable to delete this material. David in DC (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Google translate appears to verify that the source says what the article says (albeit, badly written ), however, I've pinged Anthere who is a french speaking sysop to take a look as well! KoshVorlon 16:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement is entirely correct. The sources are completely reliable, there are several other sources if needed. The information is already mentioned on the French Wikipedia. And given the notability of the person and the publicity this affair received in France... I'd say that this information should be on Wikipedia. It is factual and significant. Now... on the specifics of the wording, I will note that the reason for the conviction was clearly " corruption of minors" (she was 17). The girl went to the police to report "rape". I have not found the details of the legal report (which is probably normal given that the victim was not 18), so I can not estimate how much the fact the person was introduced to same-sex, group-sex and BDSM did influence the legal decision. However, I must stress that 1) these three considerations are properly sourced and 2) the reason why the affair hit the news so much was precisely because it was not a "simple one shot rape", but several months of eye-opening experience within a polygamy group. You will note that the statement added in English exactly reflect the statement on the French Wikipedia [41], including the specifics. Also note that this information has been on the page for several years (though details were added only in 2014). I noted that some anon tried to remove the information, which was reverted [42].

This is one of those cases where some will argue the "right to forget" since the trial is over. But where it is hard not to put it on Wikipedia given that it was hardly a confidential and unimpactful story... My view... it should be there. But I know the English Wikipedia tends to self-censor itself more than the French version. Also... the article is quite short... and it would be a little bit unfortunate that a big part of the article ends up being about that affair whilst there are so many other things interesting and relevant about this person. Anthere (talk)

The part referring him rejecting a deal with Chesterfield is probably libellous, I suspect it is a malicious edit by a Chesterfield supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.73.236 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The text in question certainly was lacking in neutrality. I've left that he rejected a contract extension but removed the rest. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of this article has no supporting references and appears to be written with original research. The band is fairly well-known in the heavy metal genre, so it shouldn't be difficult to find references.SwampZombieCult (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fellow editors, I have removed a Controversy section from this biographical article on the basis of WP:COPYVIO, WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV & WP:BLP. Looking at the page history, the section appears to have been removed & re-added a few times. Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I've collapsed this discussion because it is TLDR, is wrapped in concerns about behavioral issues which are not the purview of BLPN, is primarily a spat between two involved editors and lastly is disrupting the flow of business here on this noticeboard. Please take your discussion to another more appropriate forum. For more information see: WP:DR and WP:DRR. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What a relief. I'm sure a collapse may dissuade yet more additions to this growing wall of text. Yes there are "concerns about behavioral issues", but I suspect posting into another noticeboard, such WP:DR or WP:DRR, might bounce back here, as it does seem to be a dispute about the relevance and WP:WEIGHT of biographical detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

oh really? because right up until this post, your objections were based on "RS"? Lx 121 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The disputed material was first brought to the article by Lx 121 in December 2013. Lx 121 was doing some revert-warring at various times in the 14 months since he showed up. The revert-warring behavior has always been related to BLP-sensitive material, since the actor Mr. Furlong comes into collision so often with the law or with community morals. Lx 121 was always trying to put more controversial information in, while others were pruning it out. I think we should be conservative with controversial BLP information, keeping a carefully neutral WP:TONE. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• this user is LYING, blatantly; quote "The disputed material was first brought to the article by Lx 121 in December 2013." -- IN ACTUAL FACT i was restoring material REMOVED BY THIS USER here [44] & by his buddy hillbillieholiday, here [45]. the user is DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING the record; his edit comment AT THE TIME even acknowledges the material is "of long standing dispute" and that was in response to A DIFFERENT USER, at a time when i was not involved in the discussion or the editing. in fact, i did not "first introduce" ANY of this material; i've barely written an original word on the article, & when i have it's been minor rephrasings in an attempt to "appease" user b & user h.; aside from copyedits & finding additional sources my involvement here has been entirely about RESTORING verifiable adequately-sourced information to the article, that these users have repeatedly & inappropriately removed. Lx 121 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I collapsed the discussion because "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons...." It is not a dispute resolution forum. Content disputes are handled at WP:DRN and behavioral issues are handled at WP:ANI. Items are simply reported here and then handled on the article, article talk page or at a dispute resolution forum. In some cases brief discussion is appropriate but this one was long and disruptive :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Page has no relevant third party references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.156.156 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It could use more sources but it does include this one, which is secondary. Meatsgains (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I need some people to keep an eye on the article for Spencer Hawken. Long story short, this was previously deleted at AfD back in 2013. I became aware of the director after I created an article for one of his films, Death Walks, back in 2014. I was and still am worried about its sourcing, as the coverage was fairly light and the movie hadn't released yet. It's been about 2 years and it still hasn't released, as the date keeps getting pushed back.

Earlier this month the article was created by someone that I'm fairly certain has a conflict of interest, as their edits appear to be predominantly Hawken-related and the article was fairly casually written, to the point where it was mildly promotional. The article also heavily relied on primary and unreliable sources like IMDb. I tried cleaning this up, but was reverted without any true explanation. I've left a fairly long message on the talk page about the article and another one they created, No Reasons (now a redirect), as the sourcing on that article was all trivial, primary, or unreliable except for one source, a local radio interview.

I'm leaning towards merging and redirecting the article for Death Walks since the film still has yet to release and I think that the sourcing for that film could help justify an article for Hawken, but I don't think that there's really enough for two articles at this point in time. In any case, I'm almost 100% certain that this will be reverted back to its poorly sourced, semi-promotional state and I'd really like to avoid having to drag stuff through AfD or other deletion routes if at all possible and I'd like to avoid Hawken's article getting deleted. I think that having others come in to help back up my claims will also help prevent them from thinking that this is just something I'm pulling out of a hat. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)