Article is at FAC but contained contentious claims about living people sourced only to tabloid journalism. I've removed them and been reverted. Next steps? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarchOrDie - In response: the claims are 1) that the Duke of Edinburgh spends much of his retirement at Wood Farm and 2) that there has been speculation in the press that the Queen may give York Cottage to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I just don't see that either claim can be considered contentious, let alone defamatory. I have provided sources for both, and suggested a wider range at the FAC page. By their nature, such commentary is more likely to run in the tabloid/celebrity end of the press. But I am not aware that such as Vogue and Harpers Bazaar are considered unreliable sources. And the York Cottage claims echo the Queen's gift of Anmer Hall, another house on the Sandringham Estate, to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

I would be grateful for an indication of whether the claims made are a breach of BLP, as I don't wish to engage in an edit war. If they are, so be it. The editor who raised the query has already removed them and they aren't essential to the article. But I would contend that both elements are useful additional pieces of information that supplement the article, aren't contentious and are supported by a range of reasonable sources. I've let the originator know I've responded - a courtesy that wasn't reciprocated. KJP1 (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "since his retirement from official duties in 2017, it has been occupied by the Prince" was only sourced to the Express, and as WP:BLPSOURCES states "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" I think MarchOrDie's removal was reasonable. Whether or not this material is contentious is not critical to that conclusion, but the title of the Express article used as a source could certainly be considered controversial. The second paragraph is more complex, but once again parts of it were sourced only to tabloid journalism. I'm not saying that these statements couldn't be included, but you need to source them without using tabloids. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Most helpful. KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fellow wikipedians,

An article to which I contribute to has entered a stalemate where one Greek editor who seems to be very enthused by one particular issue, regarding the Parthenon marbles, is continuously restoring his revision of the article which contains libellous and false accusations about the subject.

My discussions with the contributor on the talk page today failed to reveal any additional information he had regarding the truth of said accusations, instead confirming that it was Biased editing. Specifically, the contributor is accusing the subject of supporting "nineteenth century racial theories", when it is plain in writing on the cited source (an article written by the subject) that he mentioned these theories discursively only to dismiss them. Perhaps this fellow, being a foreigner, may struggle with the wording of the source in a possible second language, but it seems in my opinion like he is instead choosing to interpret the article to his own liking - which is both poor practise, and in this case potentially libellous.

Please consult the source, the subject's own article, to see for yourself the misrepresentation of Hannan's line of argument.^[1] I also took the time to deconstruct this accusation on the Daniel Hannan talk page, which shows bare the falsehood of the contributors accusations.

Please compare the two versions below. It is my preference, given the irrelevant nature of the section both generally and specifically to his "political opinions" (since Hannan didn't state his opinion on the repatration), that the section is removed entirely. I also believe the selective inclusion of this peripheral subject out of the context of its discussion, especially whilst excluding every other column Hannan writes, leads to a heavy distortion in the article.

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Hannan&type=revision&diff=856795313&oldid=856791750

Thanks. Jean

JeanDePG (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is pure WP:COATRACK at best, and the supposed quotation from Hannan is an astonishing misrepresentation of the source. You are quite right simply to delete it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more eyes on Daniel Hannan would be appreciated. The same IP editor (I presume: the different IP addresses all locate to the same provider, and the editing style is consistent) has made a series of edits which give me the impression of seeking to disparage the subject. They're not all bad edits, but there is a tendency towards WP:SYNTH and an WP:UNDUE concentration on some quite minor topics, plus a tendency to use weak sources (tabloid journalism, blogs, etc.). Would be good to have a third opinion in case I'm being too favourable to the subject. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh K. Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ramesh K. Pandey reads like a puff piece. --B (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please vote or comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh K. Pandey. Edwardx (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Carlson is just one example. His article talks about his journalism career numerous times, when he is not a journalist. He has a BA in history, and never studied or received a degree in journalism. This is also true for numerous personalities at FOX news, CNN news, and MSNBC news.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8500:BFE:6D88:5F0F:E023:5B55 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to have a university degree in journalism to be a journalist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term "journalist" needs to be sourced, and that it's thrown around too loosely on lots of Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think we are having a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY here, 'cause the last edits of the pending-changes-protected article (see its history) were done by User:Tarkandeluxe, who may or may not be the subject himself. What should I do? —Angga1061 11:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Angga1061; editing biography by its subject is not prohibited even though not encouraged either. If the editor is editing promotionally then that is violation of WP:PROMO, if they're adding non neutral content, that is WP:NPOV violation and so on. I see the editor is now engaged on their talkpage about what they're removing, that is a good start. Also, as an aside please see WP:SIGLINK and correct your signature. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been attempting to help make the page Dashama Konah Gordon up to standards, as there have been a few times requests for deletion. This page is of a notable person who has been a public person online for over 13 years, as an author writing books, speaking publicly and also making and sharing videos etc. In this article, there are many references to show and prove she is notable, over a decade of references, and even some back to when she was in high school and college 20-25 years ago.

This last few days, as many editors on wikipedia have been adding issues to the page, I went in to help fix the page. And changed many passages that could be considered not correct and added many new references, as many as i could find. I worked very hard to do this and am dedicated to get it cleaned up and perfect so it can be safe from any issues or suggestions of deletion. This page now has more highly credible references then most other pages on wikipedia. Even though the subject became a public person before internet was very wide spread and popular, so there are some years it is not easy to find references, so in those cases I tried to limit the text so there wouldn't be text without references, even if its about her life. Did I do the right thing?

I want to understand what to do to keep the page safe from people saying its not notable and from people wanting to delete it? Its clear from the number of references of media appearances and even her speaking at the united nations and traveling so many places being in the news and tv, etc. She is a known person and should be on wikipedia, since this is a place for people like her to be referenced.

Please help me and let me know what I can do, and if there are still any references or text that should be edited or removed, please let me know which ones or do that yourself so it can be perfect and acceptable.

Thank you in advance for your help. 36.75.212.103 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and I am of the opinion she probably barely meets WP:GNG - but I'll be honest, you're not doing your cause any favours with source spamming. A lot of the sources included in the article were either not reliable sources, or they didn't have anything to do with the subject. A bunch more I pulled out because "was featured in article X" might demonstrate WP:GNG notability but don't actually contribute anything to the article. It would be better to tell us what the articles said about her. EG: "Teen Vogue said X's campaign to save the manatee was instrumental in protecting marine habitat.[ref]". I'll be honest, the AfD for this article is going to be an uphill climb in its present form. I made a start at article cleanup, but it needs far more effort than I have the energy to give to it. Last thing, please note that if you have a WP:COI you should disclose it immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Flannery

Matthew Joseph "Matt" Flannery (born June 16, 1977) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Name format incorrect. "Matt," which he commonly used as an alias, does not belong in the introduction with a persons legal first and last name.

Have fixed that, per WP:NICKNAME. Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-founder of the non-profit Kiva with his ex-wife Jessica Jackley. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Grammatical errors; past- and future statements. Did Jackley co-founder too? 'non-profit Kita" is that an organization or a charity? I think the writer is very self centered and does not focus on the biography and story of Matth Flannery.

Flannery is a co-founder and the former CEO of Kiva.org and the current CEO of Branch International. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sources? Too many claims, not enough legible sources. Ih had to delete more than half of their sources.

This whole entire biography was one of the most disappointing I've ever came across on Wikipedia. Many statements that were made in this article seemed over-exaggerated , Since the Author's references are incomplete and unresourceful, I am having a troubled time believe in any other thing I find on the apay.

References (7) http://ideamensch.com/matt-flannery/ (8) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-magazine/qa-with-jessica-flannery_b_99298.html (9) http://www.ted.com/talks/jessica_jackley_poverty_money_and_love (13) http://skollworldforum.org/contributor/matt-flannery/ (14) http://www.skollfoundation.org/entrepreneur/matt-flannery-and-premal-shah/ (16) http://ideamensch.com/matt-flannery/ (18) https://archive.is/20140707061943/http://women2.com/2012/01/19/effective-ceo-matt-flannery (20) http://www.techrepublic.com/article/kiva-co-founder-matt-flannery-on-finding-your-startup-idea-and-getting-people-to-come-with-you/ (21) http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/10/14/kiva-founders-talk-beginnings-finding-meaning-after-stanford/matt-flannery-ceo-and-co-founder-of-kiva/ (22) http://mashable.com/2011/09/20/kiva-matt-flannery-social-media/ ^ The links in the references are not properly referenced. The sources lifted are either questionable, self-published, and self-published and questionable on as sources as themselves or even generated content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angogaru (talk • contribs)

• Have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Flannery, "Only notability seems to be as a co-founder of Kiva. Suggest we change this to a redirect to Kiva (organization)." Anyone is welcome to vote or comment on this proposal. Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy note, Angogaru has been blocked for sockpuppetry related to his activity on this article. I have nothing to say about nor any vested interest in the article itself. EclipseDude (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Justin Miller (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A public relations biography. Persistent addition of promotional content by likely COI accounts. Yet more reversions and page protection are probably warranted, but an AfD may be the way to go here, if anyone is so inclined. At any rate, more attention would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed at Shannon Sharpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this entry [[1]] Talk:Miriam_Tey_de_Salvador there are some never ending discussions without much progress. There is an issue related to "fall in love with someone" which is on the one side very difficult to demostrate and on the other hand not relevant for the profesional biography. It was asked for a third oppinion, which was also considered for the following proposed changes:

1 The sentence " Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta." is not relevant for a professional biography and could be changed to "Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she met the editor Miquel Alzueta." but I would prefer to delete it because it is not relevant if someone fell in love with someone else and it can not be demostrated. The first reference [2] [8] is not relevant because Miriam Tey was not married with Mr. Alzueta. This can be checked in the civil register [9. The second reference [3] [10] is not relevant as it is tabloid journalism and not to be used as stated in wikipedia:

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. See more information on sources.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. The third reference [4] [11] is not valid as it is an article that describes the biography of other persons and is not focused on Miriam Tey.

2 the sentence "She is a friend of journalist Pedro J. Ramírez and fashion designer Ágatha Ruiz de la Prada." was deleted as it is not relevant to her professional life and it is based on tabloid journalism [5] [12] please see the notice above.

3 I agree with the third oppinion of Basilosauridae and the list of names is not relevant in the biography of Miriam Tey. This list can be included in the entry of CLAC. The sentence "This new institution received support by prominent Catalans such as philosopher Victoria Camps and writers Félix de Azúa, Javier Cercas, Laura Freixas, Juan Goytisolo and Juan Marsé." was accordingly deleted.

--Manlorsen (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to ANI instead of BLPN by accident, whoops. Recently, a New Zealand journalist Greg Boyed died. If you had any experience with NZ media, the cause was clear but none of the sources spelt it out instead saying stuff like he died unexpectedly and was suffering from depression and with ample links to helplines. Recently I noticed as the main story on nzherald.co.nz (one of the major news websites in NZ) the top story was this [6] which is an opinion column on the Bay of Plenty Times (owned by the same company) which directly mentions that he died by suicide. Since I expect someone is going to want change our article (there have been attempts in the past but without sources), any opinion on whether this is sufficient sourcing for a WP:BDP case? In many ways the claim is not particularly contentious, as I said anyone with experience with NZ media has know it since the day is death was first reported. But opinion columns tend to be iffy for BLP statements of fact. Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Opinion columns" are usable only for opinions, ascribed and cited as such. They are not "fact-checked" as a rule, and unless and until a reliable source states something as "fact", Wikipedia can not state it as "fact." Collect (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Feuerstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has seen some BLP-violating edits recently, and given that Feuerstein is a highly controversial figure this is no surprise. I'd like other editors to keep an eye on this page in case something like this happens again. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the whole article is about 4 controversial videos seems odd for a BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be unbiased, should the Wikipedia page Maria Butina be renamed United States of America vs Butina?

Normally criminal cases, such as murders, where the murderer is not notorious the Wikipedia page is titled The Murder of XXXX and not titled after the name of the murderer. With that in mind, Maria Butina is the person named in the lawsuit United States of America vs Butina. Previous to being named in the lawsuit she was likely not notorious enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, although that might have been an omission given she seems to have created, a possibly defunct, gun rights organization in Russia. The prosecution, the DOJ, alleges that Maria Butina was an important agent of the Russian Government and therefore should have registered as a foreign agent under 18 USC 951. Her defense claims she was not an important agent of the Russian government and therefore had no need to register with the DOJ. If the defense is to be believed Maria Butina is not noteworthy enough to deserve a Wikipedia page in her name so the WP should be named USA vs Butina and Maria Butina should redirect to USA vs Butina. If the prosecution is to be believed Maria Butina is an important 'secret' agent of the Russian government and is noteworthy on her own merit of a Wikipedia page. An issue is at this point Maria Butina should be considered not guilty and therefore not noteworthy on her own merits. Her status as an important agent of the Russian government has not been determined by the court so her Wikipedia page should be renamed USA vs Butina.

My question: Should the Maria Butina wikipedia page be renamed USA v Butina, and perhaps rewritten to be about the issues surrounding the lawsuit and not Maria Butina (as she is not determined to be noteworthy by the court)?Geo8rge (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not rename Her presumed notability comes from a long period of activity, not a single (for example) mass murder. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I suggested you take questions about her notability under WP:BLP guidelines here I didn't mean you should just transclude the discussion on the article naming directly from WP:NPOV/N to here - that seems a bit like forum shopping. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, user Pahlevun keeps using fringe or compromised sources to add text that can be considered defamatory:

• Karimi saw the Iranian Revolution as moment to put a form of Islamic socialism into practice.^[1][2] Instead the Iranian revolution, brought, in Karimi's eyes, a conservative government into power.^[1]
• From the age fifteen Karimi became interested in progressive interpretations of Islam of Shariati.^[1]
• For the Mojahedin-e Khalgh she worked on secretly listening to police communication.^[1] In 1983 she fled from Iran to Germany, where she got political asylum.^[3] Between 1985 and 1986 Karimi worked for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh in Paris where she developed stories for members of resistance from Iran seeking refuge in France.^[3] In 1986 Karimi broke with the Mojahedin-e Khalgh. In her 2005 book The Secret of Fire Karimi describes her political development in her youth, her experiences with the Mojahedin-e Khalgh and her break with the organization.^[2]

• Her sister Farzanah remained active in the Mojahedin-e Khalgh, which cost her her life.^[3]

• When she became active in GreenLeft, she did not reveal her past in the Mojahedin-e Khalgh.^[3]

Also changing titles on several Mojahedin-e Khalgh-related BLPs:

• Changed "officeholder" to criminal[7]
• Changed "president" to criminal [8]

Similar activity taking place in the Mojahedin-e Khalgh article, where another user (Expectant of Light) was recently blocked for POV pushing (among other things). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have removed PDFs from copyrighted sources apparently copied onto some website. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies, though issues in the article still remain. Can someone take a look at this please? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious help. I've already scrapped a "Controversy" section, though one or two of the sources in there could be used to write neutral content. But the entire text seems to be written by lovers and haters alternately, and much of it simply needs to be redone from scratch--besides, the lead needs to be overhauled, since it contains unverified content and is argumentative. Thank you, BLP editors, for your attention. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that Ritchie333 saw it too: thanks Ritchie. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned out the questionable content and warned CLCStudent (who reported the editor removing the BLP violations to WP:AIV of all places) to not do that again, and if they still don't get it, I'll block them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I would note that there has been ongoing issues with this page since at least 2016. An OTRS ticket reporting such issues is stored here: ticket:2016051410006572. It is on my watchlist but I spend most of my time at Commons now so I don't really catch a lot of the crap anymore. Thank you both for getting it. --Majora (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Owens, an actor who was part of the cast of the most popular sitcom in the United States 30 years ago, The Cosby Show, was recently photographed in a mundane job that helps pay his rent. Last week, Fox News and The Daily Mail job-shamed him by treating it like it was major news that an actor was working in a grocery store. Why is his employment at a grocery store part of his Wikipedia biography? Was WP:BLP revoked over the weekend? Has Wikipedia become a tabloid? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem kind of tabloidy, but it seems to have made the rounds in more respectable media, too. What I would have done is added a single line to his career like: "Following media coverage of having taken jobs to supplement his acting, Tyler Perry offered him a role on a TV series." That skips a lot of the stupid celebrity gossip issues. The CBS source cites several actors who said that what Owens did is normal for a working actor, and I don't think we should be following the lead of tabloids by making such a huge deal of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Başkaya is a high school graduate and university student, using wikipedia as his resume?!? The article must be removed in order to stop people using wikipedia as their resume and fool others by pretending they are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8101:7AD1:78DD:D75A:E19E:1396 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatih_Başkaya

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shenphen Rinpoche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains claims about criminal convictions that are disputed in the talk page by a user with declared connection to the subject. Some sources look unreliable but I could not fully evaluate myself. I don't know how to handle this. Could someone review it and mediate? Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section about the criminal conviction since it wasn't reliably sourced. The other section about the legal accusations looks dodgy too, could use some serious pruning or in the alternative be removed altogether per WP:BLPCRIME, since they're just accusations and allegations. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are legal threats in that text-wall from the CoI editor so if you feel like it you could always bring that to the attention of AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What started out as a self-promotional article about the subject, that was unsourced and/or poorly sourced, has now devolved into an attack page primarily consisting of allegations and accusations of bad conduct. The lead of the article is also poorly sourced and contains dubious claims as well. Maybe this article should be taken to WP:AFD for an assessment by the community to see if this subject meets the criteria for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I went ahead and nominated it for deletion, my first nomination, hope I did it correctly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenphen Rinpoche Isaidnoway (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now pared the problematic material. Religious leaders should have their own notability guidelines, and it appears he would meet them. Collect (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New pared-down version is fine with me. - MacPraughan (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Udit Narayan is a singer of mixed Indian and Nepali ancestry, and the 'birthplace' bit in his article has been a matter of dispute. Different news reports variously state that he was born in Bhardah village of Saptari district in Nepal, or that he was born in the Baisi village of Supaul district in Bihar, India.

This is a BLP issue, because Udit Narayan has branded the claim that he was born in Nepal as "slander", stating that it is intended to "malign" him and to stop him from receiving India's national honours (see [9][10]).

I've created a list of relevant quotes from different news articles at Talk:Udit Narayan#Survey of sources. Need inputs on how to handle the 'birthplace' bit in the article body and infobox. utcursch | talk 17:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a guiding philosophy I prefer to side with a BLP about basic facts of their biography whenever possible. If the controversy over his birthplace is actually significant to the BLP then start with his statement that he's from India and then note that some sources say he's from Nepal instead providing some context as to why this is relevant. However if it's mostly just him annoyed that people keep screwing up which side of the border he was born on I'd honestly just leave it out. It's not harming anyone to say he's from where he quite obviously says he was born. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James and his wife have two sons.

• I have expanded James Bennet (journalist) accordingly, using His NYT bio. Edwardx (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rich Egan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently recreated from a redirect by an editor who also edits other articles related to the musicians or company. Subject may possibly be notable enough, eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 03:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Desperate Measures (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been having an issue with newly registered, single purpose accounts with extreme bias for one of the productions and in particular, one of the former cast members, Emma Degerstedt. The SPAs continue to edit the article to include unsourced claims of "Original Off-Broadway" without a single source they add actually making that claim. They argue that to exclude that terminology is tantamount to removing the title of "Original Off-Broadway Susanna" from Degerstedt who left the production before it transferred to a for-profit venue from it's smaller non-profit theatre. A template box has been used to emphasize the use of the term "Original Off-Broadway cast" and add undue weight to the casts that are already mentioned in prose with reliable sources. Accusations about one of the SPAs being one of the actresses involved and continued edit warring back the same version after many differing attempts to ad neutral wording with due weight might make it a candidate for a lock. Not sure but this it has already been suggested by another experienced registered Wikipedia editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, you've posted this at four different noticeboards (here, WP:RSN, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV), and in none of those cases does this dispute seem to apply. --Calton | Talk 05:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly sourced from one archived source. While it's a valid source, the Parliament of Canada website, it's a self-published source and almost everything comes from it. Thoughts on what should be done with this page, thank you. Article: Linda Frum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I honestly don't see a problem with this page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

An odd BLP issue here. So Tawhidi is a prominent Muslim figure in Australia, for controversial reasons or otherwise. The article has sourced criticism of him by Zuhdi Jasser, another Muslim reformer, who published an opinion piece for the Asia Times. A user removed the info in question, citing a recent tweet from Tawhidi, who said Asia Times has removed the article from their website presumably after legal action claiming the info was either false, defamatory, slanderous, libellous etc. Another user restored the info. It's unclear if the article was deleted by Asia Times only or retracted by Jasser himself. The dilemma I have is this. The policy says articles must be written "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". On the one hand, we generally allow sourced criticism from notable people. Especially if you're an outspoken public figure. But on the other hand, what if the same info is deleted and/or retracted by the author or publisher?

This reminds me of the case with Maajid Nawaz, yet another Muslim reformer. The SPLC listed him as an "anti-Muslim extremist", but they later apologised and retracted it after legal action. There's no problem putting that on his article because Nawaz has openly discussed it in interviews and reliable sources. So there's no privacy issues here. But in Tawhidi's case, there's no indication (at least not yet) of him doing the same thing in reliable sources. Yes he's discussing it on Twitter, but we can't exactly use that as a source. If he published an article about this or talked about it in an interview or something, there shouldn't be an issue with including Jasser's claims. But at this particular stage, I'm kind of wary about allowing that info to be restored given that it was deleted after legal threats. Any thoughts? Spellcast (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created this article, her name was already noted on law clerks page, her husband has a page. Several sources were easy to find supporting notability as a member of the Trump administration, SCOTUS law clerk, etc. Tried to include a rather neutral source and statement about social media attention on her at current Supreme Court nomination claiming a hand position was a white power symbol. An editor later reverted based on WP:UNDUE & WP:BLP which I sort of agree with. I thanked them for the edit although it was removing my attempt at including it. In the past day though it has, unsurprisingly been added and removed again in various forms based on what has occurred so far. Someone with more familiarity with policies and handling controversial pages should probably keep an eye on it and help suggest what is appropriate. I could go either way (it being mentioned or not) as long as it is fair to the subject, not sensational or speculative coverage. I have no personal knowledge of or connection to Mrs. Bash. Phil (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I represent film director Alan Jacobs. He would like his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Jacobs) taken down, at least temporarily. He also does not want his birthdate given next to his name on the Jacobs surname page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobs_(surname)). Any assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.94.232 (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed his date of birth per WP:BLP, because no reliable source is cited. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]