This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Dr. Brian Day is a doctor in Canada who is leading a legal challenge to permit more privatization of the Canadian health system (specifically, in British Columbia, but that would have repercussions across the country).

It is a controversial case in Canada with proponents on both sides of the debate.

I'm concerned that the current article on this individual is one-sided, sounds like a commercial and not a fact-based article.

I tried to edit this article to present both sides of the debate, and provided citations -- and cleared out all of the propaganda in the article. But someone has gone back and undone all my edits.

I'd like an independent editor(s) to weigh in.

I have no stakes in this game -- other than wanting to see fair, balanced information on the individual, the court case he's bringing forward, and the all the facts so that those reading about it can make their own determination. It should not be a propaganda war.

It doesn't have to be me making the edits nor do my specific edits have to stay, but the article as it stands now is not up to Wikipedia standards and needs some independent intervention.

I spent a lot of time and energy trying to get it balanced, and I see no rationale for having my edits undone.

Thanks for your assistance.

Kathleen5454 14:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)kathleen5454 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

More eyes are needed on Joshua Duggar. This is oldest son of the Duggar family of 19 Kids and Counting who has recently admitted to fondling 5 underage girls, including family members, when he was also a child (at age 14). There have been attempts to add "admitted child molester" as opening sentence of lead. Also, the Category:American sex offender was recently added to this BLP even though Joshua Duggar was not convicted of any sex offense. Can we add this category per BLP if he's not convicted? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why have we got a biography of him anyway? He doesn't seem to be independently notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well we didn't until yesterday [1]. That said, his life has been well covered both as a reality star and more recently as the executive director of a lobbying agency and spokesman for certain conservative values. I don't think we'd have trouble finding sources about him specifically if people want to go that route. Dragons flight (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week. This should probably be redirected to the article about the show, and maybe a blurb added to the organization, but maybe once the dust settles. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

More eyes are also seem needed on his father, Jim Bob Duggar's BLP. Just removed that he was "complicit in covering up incestuous molestations" from the lead. This does seem to have some op-ed type sourcing, but the sources also said he went to the police. Stating he was complicit in criminal misconduct seems problematic here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The headshot featured on this page seems to be a rather odd choice. It has Alexis Arquette in rather severe and unnatural makeup and might be considered both misrepresentative and unflattering in comparison to the vast majority of the other photos available.

Given the extensive agenda-riddled arguing about gender and trans issues in the Talk sections, with repeated edits to make the article conform to one pronoun or another in spite of clear Wikipedia rules, I am going out on a limb here and guessing that the photo was selected specifically by a biased editor to portray Alexis in an unflattering light.

(It's a genuine photo, mind you. No argument there. It's just that it's so atypical of Alexis' appearance that the choice seems suspect.) Felice Landry (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"...vast majority of the other photos available" -- where are they? We can only use freely licensed photos (of living people) on Wikipedia, if you have or know of any such photos then you can upload them yourself. But if you don't then we're stuck with what we have. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Could anybody verify whether Mr Johnson is dead, as the Wikipedia article states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.143.167 (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable source about it, and therefore removed the death info from the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of posts on Twitter and Facebook - [2] - but we could do with something more definitive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As those aren't reliable sources, we can't include those. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard La Ruina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entry on "Richard La Ruina" appears to be mainly self-promotion and should perhaps, be considered for removal. Although this is not stated in the wikipedia article, and I may be wrong, I suspect it might be linked to a somewhat questionable web operation called "Stealth Attraction" http://getherwetwithwords.com/videobc2 /video-bc2.php. Perhaps my suspicions are subjective because an unasked for advertisement for "Stealth attraction" intruded on work I was doing on the Internet and it annoyed me (but I must admit that curiosity drove me to follow the link to see how much talk would precede the first mention of money -- "special offer for today only for so many dollars instead of the normal price etc etc". There were frequent mentions of "Richard" which I suspect was Richard La Ruina. But this requires a more objective judgment than my own. Perhaps someone could look into it?

Sjjvdberg (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article in question, it doesn't appear to be self-promotion. If it was full of several primary sources, it probably would be. But the article has several, reliable, second-hand sources that are used. Also, not everything in the article is flattering about him, such as this sentence:By his own admission, La Ruina was unsuccessful with women throughout his early life, by age 21 he had never kissed a woman. So, no, it doesn't appear to me to be promotional. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

At the talkpage of Owen Jones an editor has written a couple of comments about Jones which are unflattering and potentially false I am seeking guidance. Are these statements appropriate for a BLP talkpage? AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Users are pretty much allowed to say whatever they want on talk pages, as long as they aren't blatantly racist or personal attacks on other users or trolling. Sorry, not much we can do there. Also, do you have evidence that the comments said in question were false? SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: The comments you have a complaint about were written over two years ago. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect, SilverSurfingSerpant - WP:BLP policy applies anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, and furthermore, article talk pages are intended for discussions directly relating to article content - they are not a forum for contributors to express their personal opinions about the subject of the article. Having said that, I don't think there is much to be concerned about regarding the post in question - it is over two years old, and the contributor responsible has already been blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've set up auto-archiving on that page so those ancient comments should be disappeared from the main talk page soon. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone added something about a "little brother from Kentucky Dakota Wilson" to the article. I doubt that is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.123.192 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been removed. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronn_Torossian Report has unsourced material which has been added and cannot be removed. Help please. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has multiple in-line citations to references, 44 overall. It looks very much sourced. Can you please specify which material is unsourced? SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Describes me.

1. 1 is a website. #8 is a website that requires a subscription. #13 is a gossip blog. #19 is a press release. #25 is a PDF on a random website. #26-35 have no links. Half the sources don't have links or are literally random sites.

There was extensive discussion about it and 2 editors with political bias went in and disregard discussion. Please help. Ronn Torossian 165.254.85.130 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

NB: the IP editor is the article subject. He and his army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets have spent the last few years forum shopping (though mostly here - you can search the archives) with similarly vague, accusatory and misleading claims in broken English. There's nothing new here. Mosmof (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I admit (and say) I am the article subject. Its very simple to please review my bio and see that there are not even links for 10 of the supposed liberlous and slanderous claims. Wikipedia editors should remove #26-34 claims immediately as there's not even links. Ronn Torossian 165.254.85.130 (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it took over 6 years and more than a dozen sockpuppets, but I guess better late than never. But back to your request, see WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically this: Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. Some reliable sources happen to be paper publications. Mosmof (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Judas Priest's album, Stained Glass was produced by Dennis MacKay. This is a matter of history and record. His name continues to be removed from the article. It's not promotional, it's just fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.99.182 (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what this dispute is about, but I noticed that Binksternet reverted you at Judas Priest. He didn't give a reason, but he probably he did so because your addition was unsourced. I did a search on Google Books and turned up something that looked good, so I added it to the article. In the future, you should cite a source when your edits are challenged. You might also consider discussing disputes on the article's talk page before you come to this noticeboard. Binksternet is a reasonable guy, and I'm sure he'd listen to you if you explained your edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please ensure that the correct picture of Justice Khampepe is depicted, especially on the google search page. Please may you urgently assist as the image that comes up is that of South African President Jacob Zuma.

Justice Khampepe is female. Kindly ensure that the picture is correct.

Please see the link below: Sisi Khampepe google search - wikipedia insert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.78.169.32 (talk • contribs)

Hello, @197.78.169.32: - Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I went and used the "Feedback" option accordingly. But I think that's all we can do from here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Wright (TV personality) Unsourced assertions of a marriage on two different dates are being inserted. No explanation is being given. SovalValtos (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct you are. I've removed the unsourced assertion of marriage right now. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And I've added it back, with a source here. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21#Butcher_of_Gujarat discussion going on here there has been alleged canvassing ,edit warring and claims of WP:BLP violation as it redirects to Narendra Modi which in turn is rebutted by claims of WP:RNEUTRAL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The place to discuss that would be at the Administrators' noticeboard. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Per a bit on Last Week Tonight, in the next month we might have vandalism on pages of people listed here that implies they have sex with chickens, to say it nicely. In lieu of that, and the fact that it might occur immediately, does anyone know how this should be disseminated to the community, or does someone want to add all of these pages to a watchlist? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think that the best route might be for a group of us to each take a portion of the articles and monitor them, preferably with some overlapping of pages. It's already started, since an edit was made to José E. Serrano along these lines. It was hidden inside of an edit that had other material that could be seen as otherwise benign, if not for the "chickenfucker" remark. Offhand I'll openly say that I support a temporary, brief protection of these articles but I think that we should get a little more consensus before widely applying this to so many articles. In any case, I'll monitor Serrano's article, as well as the articles for Rosa DeLauro, Pete Visclosky, Marcy Kaptur, and Nita Lowey. I'll be back in a minute to list which articles have been vandalized. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Here are the vandalized pages. I'd started blocking some of the single purpose, obvious vandalism accounts, but most of these are IPs and in some cases the vandalism isn't entirely obvious, meaning that there may be some good faith in here. In the case of people who have made other edits but have made clear vandalism or soapbox edits, I've only blocked 'em for 48 hours. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm about to head out so I can't do it, but I think that the vandalism is enough over all of the pages to where a temporary semi protect would be warranted. Can any other admins help out on this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Materialscientist:, since I've seen you block some of the other vandals. Also, this might be worthwhile to mention on the vandalism board somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the video if anyone cares to watch it and understand the context of what exactly was asked of the audience. The vandalism seems to have subsided now, but I suspect it will pick up again later today once people wake up and start watching the videos. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ktr101, the link to the video is now 404...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the link, as I apparently never had the right url in the first place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Subsided" is a relative term, I suppose. Here is what has been going on with these articles this morning. Requesting semi as a given article sees sufficient vandalism to warrant it. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A thread about this has also been opened here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.22Chicken fucker.22 vandalism. Be aware that JO actually said that CF should be added to the pages of those who voted no on the amendment to allow the farmers to speak out about the situation so the edits may start again later this week. WP:RFPP may be more effective than "block-a-mole" MarnetteD|Talk 16:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've semi'd a good number for a week.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Talk pages could be their second target so we could have a time with that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna give a huge thanks to everyone who've looked up the names and reverted the vandalism, etc. John Oliver is brilliant but it's really disappointing that he'd encourage vandalism here, as if we here have endless time on our hands to clean up after all the vandals. Blegh. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be disappointed, to a lot of people shaming politicians is far more important than an online encyclopedia. Without this sort of political mockery we would probably not have the freedom we need to run this project. Chillum 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that the articles are protected, they are starting to hit the talk pages. -- GB fan 16:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, should we ignore the rules and place semi-prots there as well? I've done precisely that for Talk:Steve Womack‎‎
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Go for it, as I see no reason that we should allow this stuff at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the other side of it, where there are now news articles reporting on his telling his viewers to vandalize the articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to send Mr. Oliver this special delivery from all of his friends at Wikipedia.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A nice shortcut for checking these pages is to use Related Changes on the Appropriations Committee page - click here to check -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although that won't reflect changes to the related Talk pages. This (looking at related changes based on the list above, plus a few other related pages) does. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This is why I love this noticeboard. If it didn't exist, I'd have no idea that bright blue two-column list was full of chicken fuckers. After reading the fine print, I know it mostly isn't, but if I hadn't, I'd have made like Kyle Broflovski and learned something today. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential for some abuse revisited

As these protections have been expiring and the problem still exists, I am semi-protecting for one month and adding PC1 indef for articles. Talkpages, I will semi-prot for one week as needed and revert, block and ignore accounts on sight.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

poor influence in IP law and in academia ; only "maître de conférences" (lecturer in law) ; focus on administrative tasks in IP lab (CEIPI) is noticeable and does not pertain to key contribution to IP. no biography required under encyclopedia terms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.145.146 (talk • contribs)

Hard to say whether this guy meets WP:ACADEMIC or not - he's the Dean/Director of a major research center, but is also listed as an associate professor. He's "general editor" of the center's publication, but I'm not sure if that counts as a "major well-established academic journal." Fyddlestix (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically everything in his article is covered in Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies, and the bit that isn't would fit on the same sentence. But no, I don't know whether there's enough out there about him to ever drive this past a stub. If there is, deleting wouldn't be best. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Centre itself lacks secondary coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Self-evidently non-POV edited. Reads like an advertisement. AP reports he may have been behind the attempted assassination of Libya's internationally recognized prime minister: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eacc2d63c66e4b71b75e3726991cb0bc/rights-group-says-libya-civilians-trapped-eastern-city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushup edge (talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

See talk:Yūichi Nakamura (actor) -- should an unattested form recommended for translations from non-Latin lettering be used for the article title, where the only attested Latin-lettered form is different, and the attestation is from the form used by the person in question?

This touches on several issues, self-identification, attested usage, whether unattested forms are original research or synthesis where attested forms exist

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

19 Kids and Counting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The series began on September 29, 2008. Season ten began on February 17, 2015.[1] On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that at age 14-15[2], he molested five girls by fondling them without their permission, including some of his sisters.

Some editors have introduced BLP concerns by including what I believe is SYNTH in the sentence "fondling them without their permission", as if there were cases of "fondling with permission". They also have introduced a novel presentation of the controversy, by asserting that TLC pulled the show after Josh Duggar apologized, which is not what sources say (the pulled the show because of the sexual abuse, not because of the apology.)

Additional pair of eyes would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fondling without permission was added because the sources make clear they were not "playing doctor". It used to read just fondled, and I suppose we could return it to simply fondled, but an editor raised concern on the talk page discussion [3] that this could be problematic to the identified victims (who were minors at the time). Add: no one has suggested they pulled the show because he apologized, an editor in the discussion linked above raised concerns that saying he confirmed the molestation was problematic because he didn't technically confirm it...he responded by apologizing for "acting inexcusably", which is basically a confirmation in so many words. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

both are WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations to boot. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to be more of a BLP violation to say he confirmed it when he actually didn't confirm it. The "acted inexcusably" text was added to replace "confirmed", because confirmed was not accurate. [4] I don't see any SYNTH and the only potential BLP violation I see was attempt to restore "confirmed". The sources do not say he confirmed it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a lead, and a lead should summarize the article. There is no need to say "confirmed", just present what sources say: A report was published describing the allegations of sexual abuse, he apologized, TLC pulled the show, he resigned from the FRC. Simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is such a thing as fondling with permission, Cwobeel. Girlfriends and boyfriends do it all the time. As BoboMeowCat said, the "without permission" is for clarity, and I don't see how it is SYNTH, considering that SYNTH is stating something not explicitly stated by the source, when the source explicitly states that he molested the girls, meaning he did the fondling without permission. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You just described a good example of WP:SYNTH. As for your interpretation of fondling, ahem... - Cwobeel (talk)

Stop the mocking, please. Here is the definition of fondling at dictionary.com: verb (used with object), fondled, fondling.1.to handle or touch lovingly, affectionately, or tenderly; caress:

Girlfriends and boyfriends touch each other lovingly and affectionately and tenderly. So yes, there is such a thing as fondling with permission. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So, a 15 year old touching the genitals and breast of little girls, is "fondling without permission". I am sorry, but I find this conversation appalling. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much, that's ok too. I just removed the "without their permission" part. You're welcome. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Even though we redirect fondle to groping, I agree with Serpent that they aren't really synonyms. My understanding of the word "fondle" allows for two adults (or teens of a similar age) to fondle each other in a loving, consensual way. I also agree with Cwobeel that if one person is very young, then it is abusive regardless of the intent and any possible patina of consent. I would point out that the lead as written doesn't specify the ages of the victims. An unfamiliar reader looking at the lead by itself might imagine that these were girls of a similar age. I think it is important to make clear that the actions here were not the consensual messing around of similarly aged adolescents but rather an abuse of young girls. With that in mind, one might either explicitly address the consent issue (i.e. "without permission") or use stronger terms like "molest". Dragons flight (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SilverSurfingSerpent that "without permission" may not be technically needed because "molested by fondling" already implies a violation, but these girls were fondled in their sleep in most of the reported instances. It wasn't a case where they consented even though they were too young to consent. He was fondling their breast and genital region without their permission to touch them at all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A proposal to address this is active at Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Proposed_summary_of_controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• If the word "fondle" is an issue, why not be a little more technical with things? For example say "he molested five girls by touching their breasts and genitals without their permission, including some of his sisters." It's clunky, but if it's the exact term that's the issue then this would potentially help things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Probably worth mentioned that User:SilverSurfingSerpent got blocked as a sockpuppet yesterday. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Without their permission

With the recent tweaks to put the fondling allegation immediately after mention of his sisters, I really think it’s a BLP concern not to add “without their permission”. There’s an incest taboo issue here. I think the article should make clear that only Josh violated that taboo according to the cited sources. There’s further discussion on this issue on talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Without_their_permission --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

19 Kids and Counting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The series began on September 29, 2008. Season ten began on February 17, 2015.[1] On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that at age 14-15[2], he molested five girls by fondling them without their permission, including some of his sisters.

Some editors have introduced BLP concerns by including what I believe is SYNTH in the sentence "fondling them without their permission", as if there were cases of "fondling with permission". They also have introduced a novel presentation of the controversy, by asserting that TLC pulled the show after Josh Duggar apologized, which is not what sources say (the pulled the show because of the sexual abuse, not because of the apology.)

Additional pair of eyes would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fondling without permission was added because the sources make clear they were not "playing doctor". It used to read just fondled, and I suppose we could return it to simply fondled, but an editor raised concern on the talk page discussion [5] that this could be problematic to the identified victims (who were minors at the time). Add: no one has suggested they pulled the show because he apologized, an editor in the discussion linked above raised concerns that saying he confirmed the molestation was problematic because he didn't technically confirm it...he responded by apologizing for "acting inexcusably", which is basically a confirmation in so many words. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

both are WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations to boot. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to be more of a BLP violation to say he confirmed it when he actually didn't confirm it. The "acted inexcusably" text was added to replace "confirmed", because confirmed was not accurate. [6] I don't see any SYNTH and the only potential BLP violation I see was attempt to restore "confirmed". The sources do not say he confirmed it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a lead, and a lead should summarize the article. There is no need to say "confirmed", just present what sources say: A report was published describing the allegations of sexual abuse, he apologized, TLC pulled the show, he resigned from the FRC. Simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is such a thing as fondling with permission, Cwobeel. Girlfriends and boyfriends do it all the time. As BoboMeowCat said, the "without permission" is for clarity, and I don't see how it is SYNTH, considering that SYNTH is stating something not explicitly stated by the source, when the source explicitly states that he molested the girls, meaning he did the fondling without permission. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You just described a good example of WP:SYNTH. As for your interpretation of fondling, ahem... - Cwobeel (talk)

Stop the mocking, please. Here is the definition of fondling at dictionary.com: verb (used with object), fondled, fondling.1.to handle or touch lovingly, affectionately, or tenderly; caress:

Girlfriends and boyfriends touch each other lovingly and affectionately and tenderly. So yes, there is such a thing as fondling with permission. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So, a 15 year old touching the genitals and breast of little girls, is "fondling without permission". I am sorry, but I find this conversation appalling. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much, that's ok too. I just removed the "without their permission" part. You're welcome. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Even though we redirect fondle to groping, I agree with Serpent that they aren't really synonyms. My understanding of the word "fondle" allows for two adults (or teens of a similar age) to fondle each other in a loving, consensual way. I also agree with Cwobeel that if one person is very young, then it is abusive regardless of the intent and any possible patina of consent. I would point out that the lead as written doesn't specify the ages of the victims. An unfamiliar reader looking at the lead by itself might imagine that these were girls of a similar age. I think it is important to make clear that the actions here were not the consensual messing around of similarly aged adolescents but rather an abuse of young girls. With that in mind, one might either explicitly address the consent issue (i.e. "without permission") or use stronger terms like "molest". Dragons flight (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SilverSurfingSerpent that "without permission" may not be technically needed because "molested by fondling" already implies a violation, but these girls were fondled in their sleep in most of the reported instances. It wasn't a case where they consented even though they were too young to consent. He was fondling their breast and genital region without their permission to touch them at all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A proposal to address this is active at Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Proposed_summary_of_controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• If the word "fondle" is an issue, why not be a little more technical with things? For example say "he molested five girls by touching their breasts and genitals without their permission, including some of his sisters." It's clunky, but if it's the exact term that's the issue then this would potentially help things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Probably worth mentioned that User:SilverSurfingSerpent got blocked as a sockpuppet yesterday. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Without their permission

With the recent tweaks to put the fondling allegation immediately after mention of his sisters, I really think it’s a BLP concern not to add “without their permission”. There’s an incest taboo issue here. I think the article should make clear that only Josh violated that taboo according to the cited sources. There’s further discussion on this issue on talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Without_their_permission --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following is a change of venue for an unsettled discussion that first, errantly, appeared at the general Administrator's noticeboard. It remained unsettled there, see [7], and was moved here at the suggestion of one participant better versed in Wikipedia Noticeboard activities. Please note, the following is a redaction of the earlier posting, and only contains discussion germane to the question:

• Under what circumstances is it acceptable to use material drawn from the personal webpage of the title subject (i.e., Prof. Taleb's personal webpages?)

Examples of the "offending" edits, recently reintroduced, are summarized by five bulleted links that appear at the close of this posting.

Background. The Nassim Nicholas Taleb article historically has included many, many citations to Prof Taleb's personal webpage. I came on to the article recently, doing a bold edit, finding sources for several, removing some as redundant, and when necessary, placing ^{[citation needed]} for other cases, because, based on reading WP:BLPSPS, WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV, I believed it was not copacetic with the aims of wikipedia as an encyclopedic venue to reproduce personal biographical claims from an individual's self-published webpage in an article about themselves.

Consequently, in that edit:

1. I removed a citation to the title subject's Facebook page as an inline citation (as it is not an acceptable WP citation, and it already appeared in in the external links).

2. In some cases where the text gave only a self-published citation, but one that could be traced to an actual published article, online or otherwise: I left Taleb's website citation as a second inline source of the information, the actual publisher's site being the first. These cases are clear if searching "fooledbyrandomness" and finding two URLs appearing in the citation.

3. In other cases, the citation of Taleb's personal web page appeared as one of several attached to a bit of text. In this case, I simply deleted the self-published citation as redundant (with the 1, 2, 3 other proper citations still appearing).

4. In still other cases, the citations were to quotations from Taleb's book Black Swan, and in this case, I added the citation to the book, and indicated the need for a page number, with the ^{[page needed]} tag.

5. In the remaining cases, there was no way to trace the web page material to an independent source, and in these cases the personal webpage citation was deleted, and the sentence was marked wither with ^{[This quote needs a citation]} or ^{[citation needed]}. I then encouraged other concerned editors to add citations from standard WP-approved types of independent published sources to remove those tags. Note, in no case was offending, unsourced text removed.

I moved this discussion from the other noticeboard, where it remained unresolved (arguably, because it was not here as it always should have been). Various editors have weighed in, either at the original article Talk page, or at the earlier noticeboard, with opinions divided as to how to interpret the policies.

Because reversions have been done by one editor, Limit-theorem, over the objection of two of us (SPECIFICO and myself), in reintroducing Taleb personal web page citations, I am asking for Administrator guidance here.

I ask administrators to address us, @SPECIFICO:, @Limit-theorem:, @JanSuchy:, @Bgwhite:, @YechezkelZilber:, @Nil Einne: to make clear under what circumstances we should allow the appearance of the title subject's self-published materials.

Note, I have no personal issue with any of these editors.The question at hand, is if Taleb's personal webpage, [8], should be used as a recurring source at his WP article. Thank you for your attention to the matter.

Finally, I note that I encouraged and accepted a two week hiatus from editing the site, at the encouragement of an Admin, after I became heated at the reverting editors (for not discussing their reversions, as I had my original edits). That matter is fully settled, and I will ask contributors to focus on the simple pressing question, of what is, and is not acceptable, in drawing from the personal website information of Taleb, in populating his WP article.

Otherwise, some opinions appearing at the earlier Noticeboard are reproduced below, to facilitate discussion. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear all. Please note that authors/academics are allowed to post on their website gated material, articles and papers (I am an academic and am allowed to so do). So references to scientific articles that are gated can come via an author's website, though one needs to be careful to avoid self-reference beyond what is necessary and obviously useable. Removing all deadlinked (actually gated) references would be irresponsible. Limit-theorem (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC) [Reproduced as informative, from earlier posting.]

The "gated material" comment is simply not germane to the bulk of the issues that remain at this article. (I am aware of only one edit to which this description might pertain.) To be clear, again: courtesy links are not the issue; the remaining issues are uses of Taleb's self-published CV from his personal web page, as the source of biographical information throughout the article.

Here are the examples, still in the article (please note timestamp of this posting, and see Edit history if rush edits have been done to undermine this presentation):

• [9] (to support family history, in lieu of standard formal records/publications)
• [10] (to support family history, in lieu of standard formal records/publications)
• [11] (to justify all of his finance employment positions, no other source given)
• [12] (to justify all of a long string of his academic employment positions, no other source given)
• [13] (that he jointly teaches regular courses with Paul Wilmott in London)

There may be more, but this is enough of a sampling to make clear that the issue is not courtesy appearances, of which I edited in support. The issue is biographical information that is sourced only to his personal webpage, and therefore seeks to make the article an extension of that web page, rather than an encyclopedic article with reliable and (independent) verifiable information. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB specifically allows "Facebook" as a reference under certain circumstances. Self-published sources are generally okay as information sources about the subject himself, and may also be used as sources about the subject's area of expertise. Your main issue may not actually be self-publication, but rather undue weight, NPOV, et cetera. Incidentally, I edited that BLP a long time ago, but the issues you mention had not arisen yet. You may also want to move the tags from the top to the specific sections that seem most problematic, in order to focus attention. Another possible tag might be ((like resume)).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case Facebook is a verified page (i.e., seems to have gone through identity check) and can be used for statement by author, not on author. As to other sources, from my experience, an academic CV cannot be easily faked without a scandal. It entails going through employment check. Further, as I said before, citations from outside the domain of the subject are vastly preferable. Limit-theorem (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

All you have stated is understood. Please review the specific 5 instances of this individual's self-published CV being used to substantiate major biographical portions of the article. In re: the Facebook, I understand it is at times acceptable, but I cannot see how one's Facebook can ever be an acceptable source of personal information, and if it is the only source that can be offered to support a statement, the statement is almost certainly not encyclopedic, and therefore, as a sentence, deletion-worthy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

All you have stated, @Anythingyouwant: is understood. Please review the specific 5 instances of this individual's self-published CV being used to substantiate major biographical portions of the article. In re: the Facebook, I understand it is at times acceptable, but I cannot see how one's Facebook can ever be an acceptable source of personal information, and if it is the only source that can be offered to support a statement, the statement is almost certainly not encyclopedic. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will check it out. Please be patient, though, because I've got a lot on my plate. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked it out, see article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This article has been claimed to have BLP issues regarding one specific paragraph:

Canongate acquired James Rhodes's memoir in 2013[10] but James and Canongate were held to a temporary injunction, filed by his American ex-wife (also a writer), against publishing the book pending a full trial[11]. The injunction was granted on the claim that the details about the severity of the sexual abuse Rhodes suffered as a child, as well as subsequent mental illness, would be harmful to his son[12] [13]. However, on May 20, 2015, UK Supreme Court lifted the interim injunction[14] [15]) that had prevented the defendants (Rhodes and publisher) from publicly speaking about certain personal details relating to the abuse and his subsequent struggles with mental health (prohibited items were listed in Confidential Schedules to the initial temporary injunction (now overturned)[16]). The book will be published at the end of May 2015.

The paragraph above has been removed repeatedly. A claim was made by WordSeventeen that there was a "blatant BLP" violation. It is hard to see how that can be: the sources used in the paragraph above are reliable, there is nothing libelous or contentious. I cannot see how the BLP policy was violated at all. I made a suggestion on the talk page that that person take the issue to the notice board; that person did not, but rather simply continued to "edit war". That person should have followed the BLP policy that says "Editors ... should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." There was nothing in the paragraph that was libelous, contentious, or poorly sourced, and thus, the paragraph should not have been repeatedly removed.

One person said a secondary source was needed; that was added: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/supreme-court-overturns-ban-on-james-rhodes-autobiography/5048933.fullarticle Indeed, the information above is easily available in many solid news sources. A comment was made eventually (not by WordSeventeen) that court documents are prohibited by Wikipedia and that an independent source was needed. However, even after the independent source was provided, the paragraph continues to be removed. It is clearly not the case that court documents are categorically forbidden. Including the UK Supreme Court's documents as references addressed some people's concerns that there was an existing injunction prohibiting publication of certain information.

There is extensive discussion on this issue in two sections of the talk page for the article; those sections are: Name of ex-wife; her nationality and current country of residence and Blatant BLP issue ^[1].

At best, the editing done here (apparently by official Wikipedia editors, but that was not at all clear initially) was poor. Had WordSeventeen made the objection about the lack of a secondary source clear, that could have been provided easily (in fact, the Guardian article that was already included was such a secondary source^[2]). I will also point out that James Rhodes has written about the court case since the Supreme Court decision was issued; he clearly is fine about the details being made public ^[3].

The paragraph did not provide any identifying information about Rhodes's ex-wife or son. It included only details that were included as public information by the UK Supreme Court documents, namely her citizenship, country of residence, the fact she started the court proceedings, and the fact that she is a writer (the UK Supreme Court documents said "novelist"). Given that, it is difficult to see any basis for censoring the information in the paragraph, given that it is relevant to James Rhodes's Wikipedia page, his public persona as a writer, and in agreement with what he himself has made public. If we exclude information relevant to his career as a writer (including some kind of summary regarding the topic of his memoir) we then should also exclude equivalent information relevant to his career as a musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2015 (131.191.80.213 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)UTC)

Let us please leave all the links so everyone may understand what has occurred here. The IP person above is the person on report for edit warring with seven (7) reversions inside of 24 hours. See here: [14] He/she has also been warned two times for making personal attacks against me, as well as warned for edit warring and disruptive editing. See here: [15]. Regarding the first post by IP person: WP:TLDR Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. The talk section will back this up. I will leave it at that; the focus needs to be on the issue raised above.131.191.80.213 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the extensive coverage in reliable sources about the UK Supreme Court final decision allowing publication of the Rhodes autobiography, I see no BLP issue with including a description of the matter in his Wikipedia biography. Since the book will be published within days, book reviews which may well be published in reliable sources can be used to add details about his childhood trauma, and also about the controversy regarding publication of the book and associated free speech issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen, the Supreme Court judgement is definitely a very reliable source, and the consensus on the talkpage appears to be to include it, yet @WordSeventeen: has ignored this discussion, and just removed the text. Lots of the IPs reverts were also reinstating the content after it was removed by a new user for incorrect reasons- their reasons were that the Supreme Court forbade it from being talked about, which is a direct contradiction of the sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Much can be learned from this incidence. A reliable source that wasn't a court document, the Guardian article, was included in that paragraph when the Wikipedia editor removed it. More non-primary sources could have easily have been found, if that concern had been made clear when the paragraph was initially removed (however, since it seems that Wikipedia does not encourage providing multiple citations for one claim, I did not add half a dozen). This incident makes me wonder how often this sort of thing occurs on Wikipedia; it's troubling and discouraging to see it happen, especially when it involves editors. I appreciate that the job can be difficult but in this case, I really feel that more careful reading of both the paragraph that was removed (as well as the sources provided, including the Guardian article), and more careful reading of Wikipedia policies, would have led the editor to realize there was no BLP issue here. Extremely troubling is that whether it was intended or not, the action resulted in censorship of the information which the UK Supreme Court had said should not be censored (so far it's about 10 hours of censorship). The current restriction on editing the page is not justified and needs to be removed. 131.191.80.213 (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is reliably referenced and it is neutral, but WordSeventeen made five reverts, in three hours.[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Spumuq (talq) 10:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation of this incident seemed to work over on the edit warring page, however, despite the consensus here being there was no blatant BLP violation in the paragraph WordSeventeen removed.^[1] I am glad the information in the paragraph has been reinstated on James Rhodes page. This incident does show how Wikipedia's policies can be abused and misrepresented (perhaps deliberately in this case) with the result being censorship of permitted information for some time. It also drives away from Wikipedia people who have strong writing skills and who could contribute a lot, because they cannot stand this sort of thing.131.191.80.213 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WordSeventeen has been blocked by Wikipedia for a month, and his Pending Changes Reviewer and Rollback rights have been revoked, for his disruptive editing practices, which included his disruptive editing of material I edited at James Rhodes page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen 131.191.80.213 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Of the 33 sources currently in the article, 22 were written by White himself. 4 are by groups he's involved in (Amos, Kairos, his film). 2 are book reviews (neither loads) And only 5 are from 3rd party reliable sources, used for a "criticism" section. (the articles mainly discuss an Amnesty kerfuffle that doesn't even appear in the article). These kind of articles are not supposed to be a showcase for the subject's opinions which weren't noted by anyone else, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. The whole "Political views and activities" section, which is easily half of the text, is sourced only to the subject of the article. There isn't even a 3rd party source that confirms he's a journalist.

Suggestions? I posted on the talk page but no takers. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If the sources about the subject are not independent, is he notable? Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 10:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have trimmed the article substantially. It was essentially a WP:SOAPBOX. A brief Google news search suggests that the subject is notable.- MrX 15:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael J. LaCour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am not sure if this article is adequately sourced or if the statements made in the article are verified by the cited sources. Attention would be appreciated as the study this guy authored is in the news a lot for having been retracted and we need to be careful about not exaggerating what the sources say about it. (Also, LaCour appears to fail BLP1E). Everymorning talk 20:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The contents look accurate enough. BLP1E is a real concern, however: this story may well run but it's very early days; indeed the paper was only withdrawn by the journal today. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a new opinion piece in Science [21] which is quite useful. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The article on this former Manchester United footballer states that he now works as a senior account manager for Motorola. I have no private knowledge but the evidence for this claim is weak. In particular the entry footnotes this statement to a newspaper article which doesn't actually contain any reference to a job at Motorola (it does, however, say that May has been involved in a wine-importing business, which is a rather more plausible activity for a retired professional footballer who has recently come out of a lucrative career). Also, it is suspicious that Linkedin has a different David May who is indeed a senior account manager at Motorola but who describes himself as "an experienced IT account executive" whose recorded career in that industry stretches back to the 1990s when the David May who is the subject of this Wikipedia entry was playing for Manchester United. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.103.138 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to Motorola, which does not appear in the citation given (as noted above). Substituted 'wine importer'.. which does appear. Eagleash (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes to you ! The article called "Li Sheng(professor)" which i am editing is really from reliable source. So i beg your careful consideration and please do not deleted it at will, thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiandzcy (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Messiandzcy. The article in question is Li Sheng (scholar). An article about an academic who has spent 30 years trying to improve translations from Chinese to English should be written in excellent English. But instead, the article is written in mangled English, presumably badly translated from Chinese. Can you please correct that, if you are able to? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure i will try my best to correct it till the article meets the reading habit of American native people ,just please try not to delete it at will ,thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiandzcy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The article should be written not only for American tastes, but for fluent English speakers worldwide, including those residing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Jamaica, South Africa and every other country in the world, including China, where the English language is treasured and treated with respect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

about "Li Sheng (computer scientist)":the tag tells me that my citation style is wrong .But what kind of it is standard? i do not understand at all,cause I edit it for my first time .please tell me about it ,thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiandzcy (talk • contribs) 02:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ghost (Swedish band) is a Swedish band whose members wear masks and do not disclose their identities; so we don't know their names or what they look like. Naturally, rumors about who they are persist. The most well-spread claim is that Swedish musician Tobias Forge is the lead singer, with the justification being that he supposedly has writing credits under the alias "A Nameless Ghoul" (which is credited for all of Ghost's music), that a member of Behemoth posted an Instagram picture with Forge with a caption of Ghost lyrics, and simply that is sounds like him.[22][23]

My question is just because seemingly reliable metal music websites report on rumors like this, does that give them validity to be added to a BLP article? I have removed such things in the past numerous times, but am now seeking a definitive answer so I can link back to it for when it gets added again in the future (it is currently in the article with this edit [24]). I can't see it being allowed and if that's the case would like to request the article to be protected. Xfansd (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think that as long as the rumors are repeatedly reported on in reliable sources over a long period of time then we could maybe include some names- as long as it is emphasized that this is just a rumor per these RS. Unless it's officially confirmed somewhere then it shouldn't be quoted as a fact. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The first reference misspells his real first name: The reference says "Josep", but his real name is "Joseph". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinhenz (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the misspelling in the article, the reference or the citation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One "Josep" in a footnote has been corrected a few minutes ago, should be OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on regarding Brian Leiter. This entry has been locked for many years, apparently due to past vandalism and retaliatory editing. The subject is a philosopher (my area of interest), but is controversial due to strongly expressed opinions on his blogs. Prior to the edit warring initiated by user Epefleeche, this is what the entry looked like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&oldid=662603591

It included a section about controversy, but correctly focused on the subject's career and work and maintained a NPOV. User Epefleeche radically altered the content and tone of the entry on Brian Leiter, making a recent controversy the primary focus, and has been accused by another user of retaliatory editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Leiter#Possible_Retaliatory_edits_of_this_Wikipedia_page

If I understand the history, user Epefleeche only started editing the entry after someone invokved the subject's name with regard to the reliability of Law School Transparency, which appears to have enraged Epefleeche (Leiter is a critic of this organization, I do not really understand that debate).

User Epefleeche has repeatedly used blogs (such as "Above the Law") as sources and has disregarded the opinions of other editors on the TALK page (myself and Sneekypat, among others). User Epefleeche also removed relevant external links and positive references to the subject, without explanation. Restoring the version from mid-May may be the only way to salvage this article. Thank you for your attention to this dispute.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You have not made it clear where there is a BLP violation. Some blogs can be used as sources, as long as they are under editorial control and have a reputation for checking facts. Please provide specific diffs and explain how they violate policy. Otherwise this seems like a basic content dispute.- MrX 14:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

ATL does not meet those criteria for reliable blogs. It is also very strange to cite a law blog for the proposition that Leiter is a Nietzsche expert. It is not NPOV to turn the entry into primarily an entry about the controversy, which is what Epefleechee has done.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• ATL is a reliable source as far as we are concerned. The reasons Leiter is controversial are far more expansive than just a few opinions on his blog. The article previously has maintained a way too pro Leiter POV, glossing over what are major controversies in the community. Honestly, I'm tempted to rewrite the article with impeccable sourcing to make it NPOV - and that'll look a lot worse for Leiter. Also, as a warning to participants in this discussion, Leiter has previously threatened to sue Wikipedians for perceived slights. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing pro Leiter about the version before the edit war. It included a discussion of the fall 2014 controversy, it relied on proper sources, not blogs, and it described the subject's work, like most entries on philosophers I have worked on over the years. Do you have legitimate sources for evidence of controversy beyond the Gourmet Report controversy? I also think that, without evidence, you should not assert that a subject has threatened a lawsuit. How do you know? Did he threaten you? If so, you shouldn't be editing the entry, since that would suggest COI, wouldn't it?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your page, Mr. Gorman, I see that you have worked on the Noelle McAfee entry, someone intimately involved in the fall 2014 Gourmet Report controversy. See Leiter's blog: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/about-noelle-mcafee.html. Are you a friend of hers? If so, that would be a clear COI in regards this matter.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that anyone who knows a philosopher who disagrees with Leiter is unable to edit his article? If so, you have a pretty clear misunderstanding of the basics of how Wikipedia works. I, btw, know probably 75 people who know Leiter, and am friends with many of them, supporters and detractors. Also, even if Leiter had threatened to sue me (and he didn't, but he has threatened an editor) it wouldn't prevent me from editing the article. Otherwise any BLP who objected to their coverage could make their article as puffy as they wanted by simply threatening to sue any editors who tried to impose balance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My question was whether you are friends with Noelle McAfee, one of Leiter's most vocal detractors? If you are her friend, then you have a COI. Are you her friend? It is a fair question.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've corresponded with her probably twice. Even if it was a COI (and it's not) it wouldn't stop me from editing Leiter's article. You seem to have a fundamentally misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Then it sounds like you are not her friend. But FYI, user Epefleeche told me that I had a COI because I had e-mailed information to Leiter for his blog in the past (he did not realize that lots of people e-mail Leiter). So someone else may not understand how Wikipedia works.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Philosophy -- the indicia of COI in your case goes much further, including you emailing Leiter with regard to your criticism of the WP article that you had edit warred on, him following receipt of that writing a blog post devoted to criticizing that wp article, your initial substantive focus, on the second day you edited WP, being on deleting material you didn't like from the Leiter article, you having edited his article more than any other article, etc., as indicated here. How many times have you been in communication with Leiter, and he with you? And how many of those interactions have been about Wikipedia articles? Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

About three years ago, I e-mailed Leiter (whose blog I read and enjoy, that's the extent of my connection with him) about the Critchley entry. Three years later he finally blogged about it. I have never corresponded with him about Wikipedia. At best, when I send him material for the blog, I sometimes get a terse "thanks."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Junkie -- you've ducked my first question. Once again: "How many times have you been in communication with Leiter, and he with you?"

Furthermore -- didn't Leiter write back to you, with regard to your email to Leiter criticizing the Critchley Wikipedia article that you edit-warred on? Which Leiter followed, by writing a blog entry criticizing the Wikipedia article, in accord with your edits? --Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not duck your questions. I have never communicated with Leiter (or anyone for that matter) about Wikipedia. I never said anything, anywhere, to suggest that Leiter wrote me about the Critchley article. I have no idea how many times I've e-mailed him suggested blog links--20 times? 15 times? As I said very clearly, the most I have ever gotten is a "Thanks" response. Since you continue to impugn my motives, I must note that according to wikipediareview you have a reputation as an abusive administrator. And I think you need to explain how your comments here can be reconciled with maintaing a NPOV. You are intent on proving the subject is "not respected" and "disgraced" based on a single incident (which you acknowledge has nothing to do with his blog, contrary to the lede you wrote). We can pursue these back and forth accusation, or we can try to write a NPOV entry that observes the BLP rules.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The most you ever received back from Leiter, in response to your 15 to 20 emails to him, was a "Thanks" response? He never communicated more? Then how do you know, as you assert, that you were "one of several people who e-mailed Leiter about the Critchley [Wikipedia article"] that you edit-warred on?[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Because YOU linked in an earlier round of accusations to this blog post, in which Leiter refers to "readers" (plural) writing him about the Critchley entry. Since I had e-mailed him about this several years ago, but he used the plural, I inferred other readers had as well. This was plausible given how often philosophers joke about it.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You emailed Leiter. Leiter wrote that more than one reader did so. Which means at least one more, in addition to you. At least two, total.

Not, as you asserted, that "several people" contacted him. "Several" means by definition more than two." Either you were shamelessly exaggerating, without support for your "several" assertion. Or you had other personal knowledge from Leiter, as to how many people contacted him. And then denied it. Neither option is pretty.

And that's assuming Leiter was telling the truth. We know from his own admission, in his own writing, that for effect Leiter is not above telling a lie in what he writes. And then being proud enough of having done so, that he tells the world. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You made half a dozen deletions of material in the article each of which was over 22,000 bytes in size in your edit war. You were alone in that regard -- no other editor made a deletion of even 4,000. You are trying to make yourself appear to be one of "several". But you not only emailed Leiter criticizing the article. You were tearing it apart, like no other editor. Nobody even came close. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of the COI track Epee is pursuing (and I agree there is likely a coi) I think SPA/battleground/CIR may be more relevant routes to pursue. I'm vaguely uncomfortable asking how many times someone has been in communication with someone else. Although I guess I do feel comfortable asking: Philo, have you been in direct contact with Leiter specifically related to improving his Wikipedia article, or his complaints about his Wikipedia article? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I started looking into this today following a request by Philosophy Junkie on my talk page yesterday. "What a bloody mess" is my first thought. There seems to be a two-fold question here: (a) is abovethelaw.com a reliable source? (b) is abovethelaw.com a reliable source for the claim that Brian Leiter is an expert on Nietzsche? I reckon the best thing we can do for the former is to probably have a discussion on WP:RSN. As for the latter, I don't think it needs much sourcing at all. It's pretty obvious Leiter is a Nietzsche expert. Professor Leiter wrote the Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Nietzsche on Morality, which has been reviewed in the Notre Dame Philosophical Review. Leiter contributed a chapter to Richard Schacht's 1994 book Nietzsche, Genealogy, Morality (and Schacht is himself a Nietzsche scholar). Finally, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy invited Leiter to write an entry on Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy. He has also given interviews to Philosophy Talk and Philosophy Bites on Nietzsche. The question of whether Leiter is a Nietzsche expert seems to be one which can be answered without resorting to a law blog like Above the Law. I've thus removed this from the article and replaced it with a sentence that doesn't reference Above the Law. The remaining issues regarding the use of Above the Law for the UCL Nietzsche Club incident probably ought to be dependent on consensus from an RSN discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tom Morriss for clearing this up. Under BLP rules, high quality sources are to be used. Can a gossip blog about law be a high quality source?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Junkie -- Under blp rules, blogs can be used as RS sources if they meet our criteria. This blog has both a managing editor and an editorial staff, and meets our criteria. Your POV denigration of it as a "gossip" blog notwithstanding. Nor do I see any other BLP issues here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The American Bar Association journal also describes it as a gossip blog: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/legal_gossip_maven_david_lat_dishes_on_above_the_law/ . Maybe it is RS for some purposes, but not for BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a laudatory article about the blog and its leadershiop. It starts with: "Harvard. Yale. Wachtell. Federal prosecutor. Federal appeals court clerkship. All are part of David Lat’s impressive resume. Yet the 32-year-old is now prominent not in a traditional legal job but as the editor of one of the nation’s most-talked-about legal blogs, Above the Law." This is an editorial-board-led blog, and as that article points out, its editor has an impressive background. This is what we look for in RS blogs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You objected to my calling it a law gossip blog, but that's what it is and that's what the linked article says. If the qualifications of the author make a blog a RS, then Leiter's blog is much more reliable than Above the Law. But I agree that neither are RSs for purposes of BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No -- Leiter's blog lacks any editorial oversight, and is therefore not an RS. ATL does have editorial oversight. In contrast. This has been explained to you repeatedly. Further, ATL has a good reputation, as the ABA article indicates. Leiter, in contrast, as we can see from Leiter's writings, is not above telling a lie for effect in his writing, and perhaps because of this and because of other missives, his personal reputation seem to have suffered, leading to his being thrown out as editor of PGR. Anyway, his no-editorial-board blog of personal musings is clearly not an RS, and if you think it is and need others to say what I have said -- just open up a thread about it. But it is a waste of time. Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Ira Lewy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some help dealing with an apparent COI editor (Kingseason) here, and some more eyes/perspectives on the article. I stumbled across the article last week and removed a lot of un-sourced or poorly-sourced puffery, while adding some details about Lewy's involvement in breast implant litigation during the 1990s, which seems to me to be the primary and maybe even the only reason why Lewy is notable. (See these sources from the NY times [32], [33])

Kingseason does not seem to have heard/understood me when I've explained WP:COI and WP:RS, and they feel strongly that my edits were unfair. The sourcing and COI problems seem pretty clear-cut, but I'd love for more people to weigh in on how the article should treat the NY times articles and Lewy's involvement in the implant lawsuits. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Kingseason would like to add information about his ABIM certifications (See Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Verification of Credentials American Boards of Internal Medicine and Hematology) to the article. They have provided this link for the ABIM website as verification. The problem is that this is not a direct link and the name "Robert Ira Lewy" needs to be added and searched I have done this and it does take you to a page verifying the certifications, but I am unable to find a way to link to that page. Would it be acceptable to use this as a source for "Lewy is certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in internal medicine and hematology"? If so, how should the citation be formatted? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The name should be Saidi Balogun not Saheed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.196.90 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit war is currently going on for the page for David O. Russel. The statement (and associated source) are written in the style of tabloid journalism (the source itself references TMZ as a news source) - which violates the BLP policies.

The earlier version is the one I think should stay. Diff Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the content is problematic per WP:BLPCRIME. I have reverted the recent addition of similar content. Although it was published on the chicagotribune.com, it appears to be syndicated content, with no fact checking whatsoever.- MrX 14:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Slender Man stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP has added the names of the alleged perpetrators and the victim to the article. Should this be removed? I strongly suspect it should per WP:BLPCRIME but want to hear what other editors think. Everymorning talk 00:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, having read the article, all the information is clearly reliably-sourced with secondary sources, not to mention the fact that articles on stabbings and shootings routinely name victims and perpetrators, as long as the stuff is reliably sourced. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those BLP editors who took the time to enter accurate data into the persondata templates of biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve such data. Here are two examples of Wikidata for notable notable baseball players: Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hastert's legal troubles revealed over the past few days are described in great detail in a section of the article on him, as is appropriate. Some editors have also been placing that in the lead, to an overwhelming degree, violating UNDUE policy on a BLP. Jonathunder (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty major revelation, so it should at least be included in the lead in some form. How did you come to the conclusion that it "violates" WP:UNDUE? Did you count sources, or words? WP:WEIGHT has to be determined by consensus on the article talk page, since it's not a black-and-white attribute that can easily be measured.- MrX 23:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:Dennis_Hastert#Indictment_in_lead. The OP needs to engage in discussions rather than edit war, or post in AN/I and in here. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the material about this in the lead is excessive. Since Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and since there has been no conviction, I would put less than half as many words about this in the lead. Here is my suggestion:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that two sentences out of five in the lead, (roughly 40% of the lead), is excessive per WP:RECENTISM and due weight, given Hastert's long career, and the fact that he has been convicted of nothing at this time. We must write BLPs conservatively, and over-emphasizing recent news in the lead of a BLP is always inadvisable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Two sentences doesn't look like WP:UNDUE to me. After all, the indictment is a major revelation, an indictment of a U.S. House Speaker no less, and two sentences is relatively short. HillMountain (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There are now 79 words about it in the lead. My proposal above is 37 words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail would be missing in your version. Let's just be glad that the accusations of sexual abuse aren't in the lead; that would be WP:UNDUE. HillMountain (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I count 139 words in the lead, of which 79 are now about this topic. Maybe, as more news comes out, we can work our way toward 90% of the lead? Seriously, I have not seen such a big emphasis in the lead under similar circumstances. See, for example, this archived Jesse Jackson, Jr. Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. If more news comes out, I have no problem with that. HillMountain (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess some Wikipedia editors are WP:NOT HERE. Often I suspect that Wikipedia itself is WP:NOT HERE. Anyway, I guess we'll have to await more input.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it certainly belongs in the article, but I'm not convinced that it belongs in the lead at this point. If he is convicted, then it likely will, but at this point, I don't think it should be there quite yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Presently it's just under half the lead, and says this:

If it needs to be shortened further, I'd simply get rid of the second sentence, because the alleged misconduct, compensation, and concealment are not federal crimes that he's being charged with violating. But since I've already managed to whittle this stuff down somewhat, I don't plan on taking the lead in getting rid of the second sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:HillMountain has been blocked as a sockpuppet, probably has a large impact on this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

One problem with the Hastert lead was that, putting aside the indictment stuff, it was extremely and unusually short. So, I've added a couple standard paragraphs unrelated to the indictment. I think this alleviates a lot of the undue weight concerns about the indictment stuff in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I was in Victoria, B.C. Canada last week. There it was reported that William Fraser Tolmie was influential in negotiations between the United States and Russia for the purchase of the Alaska Territory. If this is true, it would be an interesting addition to his bibliography. I have no good reference for this information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.84.219 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This article Nick Leslau (did I do that right? Nick Leslau) reads like a puff piece: "Thanks to his friend Tom Hunter, Leslau became interested in solving the world's problems" is particularly striking, but there are plenty of others: "the dynamic retail group Richer Sounds", "it could never hope to achieve the dizzy expectations generated by the media" etc.

Sorry, am not an experienced Wikipedia editor (at all) but came across this and it felt notably non-Wikipedia-like and so I wanted to flag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.212.79 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done.

Hello,

I'm writing because I am the subject of a recently created biography on Wikipedia. The trouble is that the article conflates two different Catherine Crumps. I am the Catherine Crump on the faculty of Berkeley Law School. There is a different Catherine Crump, a 57 year-old Illinois woman, who sought to register a trademark on Eric Garnder's dying words ("I can't breathe."). I am NOT that Catherine Crump.

Here is my Berkeley Law School bio, Please compare it to this Washington Post article discussing the Garner trademark petition.

The article explains that the woman who filed the trademark application lives in Illinois and was 57. I live in California and am two decades younger.

The easy solution is to delete the last two lines of the current Wikipedia entry, which pertain to the Illinois Catherine Crump, and to delete the inaccurate reference to my age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrump (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Malik. Sorry about the snafu Dr. Crump. My Facebook friends and I were really scratching our heads about the whole trademark the I can't breathe phrase but somehow overlooked the obvious -- two separate people. We still would like a photo for your wikipage; if you have one, write something on my talk page or email me at thomaswrightsulcer (at) yahoo (dot) com. Last, Dr. Crump, while I agree in general with a need for privacy, I see problems with the stance of yourself and the ACLU against all mass surveillance; for example, there will be situations in which the only way that authorities can possibly foresee an impending attack is by siphoning through the collective data of innocent citizens. Years back, I worked out a solution to the problem of terrorism, which takes into account the idea of rights, and tries to put all the puzzle pieces together as a grand strategy of sorts, and my latest take is here. For the plan to succeed, it would require a substantial revamp of the US constitution, such as this one. Till then, can we get your photo for Wikipedia?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This query also concerns the articles on other wikipedias as well. It is about an actress who wants her year of birth and age removed from Wikipedia. She claims that ageism in the industry means that she cannot land jobs because a simple google search produces her age. The problem is similar to one posted here. The wiki article and imdb currently provide data that gets into the Google Knowledge Graph. The actress claims she has already lost a few jobs because of this. She contacted BG-wiki via a really courteous and good-faith mail explaining her (rather unfortunate) situation. In it, she did not contest the information itself (this was her actual birth date).

Up until recently her birth year was widely circulated in Bulgaria, but she seems to have been on a spree to have it removed. It could still be deducted from the years when she started and finished school etc. What is more, now she is publicizing information pushing her year of birth two years forward, claiming she made her cinema debut at the age of 14 (she was, in fact, 16).

I've been going through wiki policies on the matter and namely BLP and I really can't decide what approach would be best. On one hand, BLP explicitly states that if the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. Plus, removing the year would, in fact, borderline on censorship. Not to mention the very real possibility of a fake year of birth appearing, based on her recent activity.

On the other hand, the problems Ms Tenekedjieva raises are very real and do indeed have an impact on her life. She argues that this piece of personal information is harming her interests.

It is a very difficult topic and question and I would really appreciate any input on it. If it was up to me, I would have the year of birth restored, but I do feel I might be missing something here. --Laveol ^T 12:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Part of this requires a good RS for her date of birth. If we can't find one then it can't be added, which sort of solves the problem a little. I do have to kind of say that going about trying to scrub the information from the Internet does have the unintentional side effect of having a Streisand effect. Other actresses have tried to get this removed from various locations... only for it to get reported on in the media, sometimes heavily. I get why she's saying this, but sometimes trying to do this quietly will still result in the casting directors hearing about it, even if it doesn't get picked up by the media. Anywho, since we don't have a RS for the DOB and she's not really a huge player on Wikipedia, I say leave it off. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed.--ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)Well, we do have imdb, plus the date when she graduated - from her school's archives, which fits perfectly of her being born April 12, 1971. I was thinking about the Streisand effect too, when I first bumped into that issue. It provoked me to do quite the extensive search on an issue I would have otherwise thought as entirely irrelevant. Having done so, I am beginning to wonder whether she might be successful in actually faking her year of birth. She only needs to remove the imdb mention now and, in her own words, she is currently at it. The question is more along the lines of, if there are indeed RS, should we include her year of birth against her wishes? Should we try and preserve this information while it is publicly available? Does someone know about similar Wiki cases in the past?--Laveol ^T 13:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a self-promotional article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.92.174.154 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on this article? I don't think we would have List of sexual assault victims and this article is approaching that territory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish "are you fucking kidding me?" was a criteria for Speedy Deletion. AfD it, at least. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I think that these are notable events is indictment of our culture but they defiantly notable by our criteria here, regardless of how distasteful some might find it. At the very least, though, much of the sourcing is trash and linking out to nude pictures of dubious legal status is not a great idea. GraniteSand (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I will nominate for deletion per WP:LISTN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 00:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother. Nuked with extreme prejudice. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite! EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 00:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not cool, that's a horrible misuse of G10. At least let it go to AfD. GraniteSand (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If much of the sourcing linked to sites hosting stolen material then immediate deletion was a valid call. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked at three sources. The first one hosted them directly, the second two linked. WP:BLPEL is relevant. More relevant is that we should not be a host for unpleasant misogyny. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of unpleasant misogyny, perhaps the admin could have a look at the preceding thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

None of which is grounds for G10. You've abused your powers by speedily deleting a controversial article with real content that isn't, itself, a copyvio. That you'd even mention "hosting unpleasant misogyny" as a justification is outrageous. GraniteSand (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, stuff a cork in it. What this was was a list of victims of hacking, with links to the stolen material. An encyclopedia is not TMZ; if you wish it to be, then I hope your stay in this project will be brief. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

How about, no? The is nothing inherently SPEEDY about the article. Sources can be replaced, articles can be improved. That some people find the subject matter offensive is totally irrelavent. I don't care that you don't like it. I don't like it. That's not the point. There's a reason why the speedy criteria is so narrow and why we have an AfD process. This an abuse of the admin tools thorugh circumventing the established process for establishing community consensus on whether or not an article should be deleted. Keep your cork. GraniteSand (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's up at WP:DRV GraniteSand (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(Restoring from archive because the user keeps restoring the BLP-noncompliant material.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) At Hamid Dabashi, we've got a user repeatedly restoring a paragraph cited entirely to Front Page Magazine, to an op-ed in a student newspaper from the instigator of a controversy about the subject, and to a small-circulation politically oriented paper (as well as to a primary source by the subject which is being interpreted by this student). I think it's clear that these sources are not BLP-compliant; if the information was verifiable and truly controversial, this user should be able to cite reliable sources in order to add it, not personal rants and conspiracy theorists like Daniel Pipes. I'd like BLPN to help confirm which, if any, sources are available to support the inclusion of this supposed controversy, and - if that answer is nonzero - how it should be included in the article, since the current text appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FrontPageMag is definitely not a reliable source, and Campus Watch is a polemic site usable, at best, only for its own opinions. I've removed those sources immediately, and will examine the remaining text at further length. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Campus Watch is neither here nor there - I agree it's unreliable, but it's just reprinting an op-ed from a student newspaper (which, as I said - given that it's not only an op-ed by a student, but that it's by someone with a personal grudge against the subject, it's also not a reliable source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this article is sourced primarily from the New York Sun and this is the first source cited. Frontpagemag was used only as a peripheral source (and yes, while that article was written by controversial scholar Daniel Pipes, it's citation here does not repeat any of his opinions). As to Roscelese's claim that this text "appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes", I challenge her to elaborate as too how it misrepresents Dabashi. True, it doesn't portray Dabashi in a particularly favourable light, but that alone does not mean that it misrepresents him.

The primary source of this article is the New York Sun, which was a fully published newspaper in circulation in New York City from 2002-2008 (although it only exists today as an online publication). Yes, it does have a political slant (i.e. it is conservative) but that doesn't mean it is not RS - Conservative and left-wing sources are cited throughout Wikipedia (also note that the New York Sun is cited as the source in the article, although I will try and make this more obvious). Finally, Victor Luria's piece in the Columbia Spectator is only being cited to reflect the opinions of Victor Luria himself. Dabashi was offered the chance to respond to this by the New York Sun, but he has declined.

If the Frontpagemag citation is what is making Roscelese so uncomfortable, than I suppose it can be removed, but the New York Sun (regardless of Roscelese's personal opinion) is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and there is no reason why this section should be removed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC))

If the event was notable, why was a tiny political paper the most reliable of the sources that picked it up? Why not just try to find reliable sources, instead of removing FrontPage but keeping the material that was cited to it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've explained numerous times, the New York Sun is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and it was (at the time), not a "tiny" newspaper. The Frontpagemag article largely reiterated what the Sun had already printed. Yes, the Sun does have a conservative slant, but that doesn't mean it is not reliable - Wikipedia contains material taken from both Conservative and left-wing sources.

More importantly, you still haven't responded to my challenge; you claimed that "[the] current text appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes." Again, please clarify exactly how this section "deliberately misrepresent[s]" Dabashi's emails. I look forward to your answer.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

How about taking your source to RSN to see if people agree with you before using it to source controversial claims about living people? You shouldn't be edit-warring to restore material cited to questionable sources. Since the sources aren't reliable in this BLP, the misrepresentation question is a bit moot, but the article selectively quotes Dabashi's article to claim that he made general statements instead of describing a specific incident. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've restored this from the archive because Hyperionsteel persists in restoring the unreliable sources and the misrepresentation of the BLP subject's writings. Hyperionsteel must get other users to agree that this tiny agenda-oriented paper is reliable for controversial claims about living people in order to include it, and, either way, cease to deliberately misrepresent primary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my response. The New York Sun is a reliable third-party source by Wikipedia standards. Roscelese hasn't cited any evidence to indicate otherwise except for her own opinion (which, as I have shown above, is not based on reality). Roscelese can't accept this, so she is trying to come up with a new excuse to remove this material (since her previous attempt at doing so in this noticeboard failed). There really is no point to continuing this but I'm willing to repeat these arguments as long as is necessary. The source Roscelese was concerned about (Frontpagemag) has been removed, and it was only used as a peripheral source to begin with. Anyway, until Roscelese provides some evidence to support her claim that the New York Sun is not a reliable source, she has no case here.

More importantly, Roscelese made a serious accusation that "[the] current text appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes." I have asked her repeatedly to clarify how I've "deliberately misrepresent[ed]" Dabashi with this section, but she has not provided any clarification (rather, she has only provided evasion and double-talk). I will ask Roscelese to either provide evidence to support this accusation, or to apologize.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC))

Hyperionsteel, you should be able to make a case for the source being reliable and get other people to agree with you. Making it all about your beef with me won't help that. Instead, explain why a small agenda-based outfit (whose current front-page "news" includes this sort of nonsense) should be trusted to report claims about its political enemies when those claims do not appear in reliable sources, and propose text that corrects the misrepresentation of the subject's writings. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who made it about me when you accused me of deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi without any evidence to support your claim. But getting back to the issue at hand, the New York Sun was a published newspaper from 2002-2008. True, today it exists only as an online publication. You don't seem to like the New York Sun solely because you disagree with its political slant (i.e. it is conservative). Unfortunately, that alone is not a reason to declare it non-RS. Your statement that the Sun has a list a "political enemies" is nonsense - leftwing publications publish similar reports against those on the opposite side of the political spectrum (do they have a list of "political enemies" as well?). Finally you state that this section includes a "misrepresentation of the subject's writings" - I will ask you again, how does this section "misrepresent" Dabashi? You keep making this claim, yet can't provide any evidence to support it. You need to accept the fact that you can't label a publication as non-RS simply because it has a conservative slant.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC))

• This is the BLP Noticeboard, so we are concerned with more than just sourcing. I do not have a problem with using the New York Sun as a source. I may (repeat, may, not do) have a problem with quite so much of the article being devoted to controversy. That's always a red flag, but in this case may be justified. The Luria subsection, about which there was some edit warring before the article was protected, seems excessive in length. Coretheapple (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, dealing with Roscelese's obsessive hatred of all conservative-leaning sources and her false accusations against me (i.e. of trying to deliberate misrepresent Dabashi with this section), have consumed most of this discussion. Since Roscelese failed to get her way the first time this was posted to BLPN, she's making a second try at it, and in doing so, wasting everyone's time. Getting to your point though, Dabashi is a controversial figure, as evidenced by his controversial statements and writings (e.g. comparing Azar Nafisi to Lynndie England, claiming that Lee Bollinger is a white-supremacist, etc.) which is why this section is so large - note that Dabashi's responses to these controversies are also provided where available. Anyway, if you think that the section on Victor Luria is too long, I'm willing to consider reducing its size. Sadly, Roscelese has already made it clear that she will settle for nothing less then the removal of this entire section, so your suggestion is probably not an option at this point in time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

• There is nothing wrong with the sourcing and I haven't seen Roscelese bring any substantive objection to the veracity of the material being cited. If there is anything worth bringing to the BLPN table it's weight; the section seems petty and trivial. There was no police report, there was no enduring affect on anyone involved, the University didn't change a policy, etc. The only thing the section seems to illuminate or note is the suggestion that Dabashi is something of a hysteric. GraniteSand (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, since other users find the source acceptable, when the article is unprotected we can just fix the weight and misrepresentation BLP issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Also, I look forward to you finally explaining how the material I added to this section "appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes." I'll expect either an explanation or an apology when we return to this issue.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC))

I've already explained the problem and you can stop expecting an apology. You need to end this battleground behavior and focus on improving the encyclopedia, not on trying to "win" against other users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

When you stop making false accusations against me and wasting everyone's time, then I will no longer expect an apology.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC))

He's currently described as a paedophile in the first line. It's debatable whether he is or not. I've put an RFC on the talk page and would welcome some comments either way. Briefly: I don't feel it belongs in any article unless the person is well reported to be a dictionary-definition-paedophile. Powercf (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• He's a convicted paedophile, who pled guilty by the way. He's repeatedly referred to as a paedophile in reliable sources. I also think it's super weird that this is a brand new account and your only action has been to remove "paedophile" from the description of a convicted paedophile and start an RfC to get it removed. What's up with that? Do you have a different account? —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it's a former IP user. Sure looks like 109.70.150.49, that particular user also was on a campaign to remove the word "pedophile" out of Ian Watkins' Wiki page as well. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. I've been making maybe two edits a year for a number of years. Usually just typos, punctuation and factual errors. This is the first time I've received any resistance. I registered an account as I wasn't allowed use the P word on that talk page due to some filter or something. I thought a user account would help, it didn't. Disappointing experience overall - people unwilling to read articles and engage brain. Fin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.85.76 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There have been two posts today at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) providing links to a sex video that is purported to be a rape reenactment created by Emma Sulkowicz, as further performance art. Both were posted by IPs geolocating to Munich. I can't find anything in American mainstream RS about this, so I'm assuming hoax for the time being. Further guidance and/or action requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously we should wait until it is confirmed by other reliable sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well that wasn't so obvious to this very experienced editor, and you and I have to sleep sometime. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Two more attempts from two new IPs. Requested semi at WP:RFPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the issue? There is an interview with her here where she talks about it openly. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that (1) there is no proof that's her "talking". It's written words on a screen, along with a photo of her. And (2) there is no mention in mainstream RS. Don't you think they would have picked up something like this by now if it was legit? I do. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing about artnet that would make me think this is a giant hoax, nor that Cait Munro (listed as interviewer) is part of the hoax. Artnet appears to be a very reliable source. And it appears to just have been posted today. But I really don't think, after this stunt, that many mainstream media sources are going to rush to profile her. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in waiting to pull the trigger on this until it's picked up by other sources. My guess is the MSM is still trying to digest what is a pretty bizarre story and academic sources don't exactly publish at lightning speed. GraniteSand (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I would have thought we would err on the BLP side. We're talking about a semi on an article talk page until we know for sure, a temporary inconvenience to any legit IPs who might want to post on that page. But that's just me. I'll continue to revert what I see until I go to sleep in an hour or two. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I support your position. "Pulling the trigger" was a reference to buying into the source and keeping the material on the talk page and/or the article page. The veracity of the video will be made clear in the next day or two, I'm sure. At that point everyone can figure out what to do with it. GraniteSand (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, metaphor misinterp. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The page has been semi'd for 3 days via RFPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is already hitting some of the usual "breaking news, publish it quick" sites:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/columbias-mattress-girl-has-made-an-artistic-sex-tape/

http://jezebel.com/emma-sulkowiczs-newest-art-project-is-a-disturbing-sex-1709234401

https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/05/yes-emma-sulkowicz-appeared-in-a-pornogr

I see no reason why we shouldn't wait until it hits the New York Times. As much as some folks would like Wikipedia to be a "breaking news, publish it quick" site, the last time I checked we are still an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Guy 100%. (dammit) There was one attempt to add some content about this, and guess what the edit sum began with. "Breaking news." ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

But the edits in dispute weren't to article space, they were on the talk page. This seems to have enough sourcing at this point to be discussed on the talk page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: Depends on your meaning, imo. I don't see a problem with discussing it there, there's no harm in talking as long as no link is posted and it's not WP:FORUM. And there's a thread there now. I just don't think the discussion should be toward deciding whether to add content now, since I don't see that as a matter for local consensus. It's a BLP concern, and as Guy said, we're an encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Guy doesn't see a problem linking to sources that link to the video, because he did so above in this discussion. If editors feel it's relevant to the article to discuss this on the article talk page, seems they can do similarly. There's no need to drop the link to the graphic video directly to talk page, just link to artnet or one of the other sources that confirm this is an artwork by Sulkowicz and also contain a link to the video. [34]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is not a matter for local consensus, which clearly should not be decided locally (fox guarding henhouse), then such links are moot and pointless, yes? And more destructive in article talk because that has a lot more visibility than BLPN. Again, why are you in a hurry? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, the talk thread includes a link to this one, so my reasoning is flawed as to visibility. Maybe Guy would care to remove the links above, as they're not essential to his point. Or, if my understanding of proper handling of BLP concerns is flawed, maybe a BLP expert or two could tell me that, which was my reason for starting this thread in the first place. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why remove the links? There are clearly BLP concerns regarding ever including text related to this video. To appreciate and discuss those concerns, I think it would help the editors to have access to the video to see why it's concerning. The sources discussing this video appear to be increasing, so seems reasonable to discuss this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Absent any expert guidance here (similar to a recent experience at NPOVN, which was essentially an extension of article talk), and lacking a lot of confidence in this area, I'll withdraw my opposition to both the links and the local consensus, and I'll post to that effect there. I remain strongly opposed to inclusion before mainstream RS. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss I'm also opposed to adding any text to the article about this absent better sourcing (and maybe even then). Seems this is something that should be carefully discussed because Sulkowicz appears to be acting out an alleged rape, in a case where the alleged rapist has been publicly identified. My only point is it seems reasonable to start discussing the concerns.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so let's discuss, there. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, Mandruss, I wasn't suggesting I think this should be only a local consensus issue, I just don't think that a link to an article discussing this video is a problem on the article talk page. Including it in the article is a different story. Seems like if there is local consensus to include text related to this video, it might still be a good idea to get wider input on BLPN before adding it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New York Magazine: Emma Sulkowicz Made a Film Addressing Rape --89.204.155.121 (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Michael Collins Piper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article itself has no source. There is this revisionist site mentioned on the talk page, and [35] which might be an RS but doesn't name the dead body (although comments do). Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be true, but his Wikipedia bio should absolutely not state that he's dead unless there is a reliable source that says so. Something should surface in the news in the next few days or weeks if it's true.- MrX 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The article states that Algieri lost to both Pacquiao and Khan by way of KO. This is nonsense - both were Unanimous Decision victories for the respective other guy. I am no expert on Algieri so it is possible that more is wrong. Someone should take a look at this.

What I just said is also reflected in: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Chris_Algieri - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khan_%28boxer%29#Khan_vs._Algieri

Whoever wrote those sections on this article was drunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.22.135 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

רדיומן aka blogger Richard Silverstein aka Richards1052 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richards1052) has created a WP:BLP on an Ethiopian named Avera Mengistu. Silverstein is the SOLE source for the information on this page, that Avera Mengistu is being held for ransom and has been left for dead by the Israeli government ("Israeli Government Abandons Ethiopian-Israeli Reportedly Held Captive In Gaza").

• The post that is the sole source for this article states that Mengistu is "allegedly" mentally ill. The "report" is not any kind of neutral coverage but is written in an opinion-style piece ("This secrecy serves the interests of the Israeli government, but not the interests of the victim. If the public knew about this, they might demand the state do all in its power to free him — which would certainly include the exchange of Palestinian prisoners.... The IDF would rather murder its own soldiers than have to give up 1,000 Palestinian prisoners to secure the return of a single live Israeli.").
• Silverstein's "research" into this matter consists of 1) anonymous commenter leaves a message on his blog saying Avera Mengistu is being held captive. 2) Silverstein asks commenter to "interview" Avera Mengistu's family for him. 3) Silverstein oddly makes no mention of any verification he did.
• There is no confirmation from any reliable source that this has occurred. A similiarly political blog in Hebrew appears to be the only coverage of Silverstein's theory at all, and includes a comment ("courage!") left by Silverstein himself and another comment that Silverstein is now writing for Wikipedia. The blog also describes Avera Mengistu as "imaginary."
• On the talk page Talk:Avera Mengistu, Richard Silverstein argues the article should stay because of free speech: "Further, it is important that this article remain precisely in order to uphold principles of freedom of the press and transparency, which are in danger in Israel."
• On a forum, Silverstein promotes his article and ASKS PEOPLE TO GIVE HIM MONEY. ("Don’t forget too that the research and reporting takes hard work that deserves your financial support. Tip the jar via a tax-deductible donation or via Paypal in the sidebar.")

This article has been appropriately tagged for deletion by Kigelim. This entire thing appears to be wholly invented by the editor, who has a large WP:COI considering he is promoting his own political blog in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I tagged this for speedy deletion as such. MShabazz declined the speedy with the claim that it is "not invented" but did not provide ANY information to support this. Notably, this administrator also defended Silverstein in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richards1052, even though his second account is used to edit information on articles in which the primary account has declared a COI.

According to Wikipedia's standards, this article cannot exist as WP:BLP until reliable sources report this information. (By the way I am truly a neutral editor; unlike Silverstein and MShabazz, I do not regularly edit anything related to Israel/Palestine/Judaism/Islam. I saw this on AfD and was horrified.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You can be as horrified as you'd like, but the article doesn't qualify for an A11 speedy deletion. It isn't "obviously invented" and there is a credible assertion of significance. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What information do you have that it is not invented? Which reliable sources support a "credible assertion of significance"? Please share. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:CCOS. Speedy deletion is a very low bar, and it doesn't require reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is however obviously BLP1E at best. And if there are doubts about whether the sources support the assertions in the article, these should be removed individually. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is only one source supporting the article's assertion, and it's not reliable, so the whole article should be deleted ASAP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sujit Lalwani

It is highly likely that the article has been written as a means of self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyke123 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

This Philadelphia media person or someone who supports him has scrubbed his entry of any mention of his firing for sexual harassment of Alycia Lane, mentioning only his guilty plea in the case, and that only in the context of proclaiming his innocence. The information is easily found at other web sites.

Al Mascitti Hockessin, Del. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.45.206 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Content was removed by a very experienced editor User:Mrschimpf with the comment (rv (POV removals)) in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Mendte&diff=631334243&oldid=631327154 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what was said; I found the added source unacceptable and the addition of the line in the lede "Larry is most famous for his involvement with fellow news anchor..." to be prejudicial (most know him outside the Philadelphia area for his early Access Hollywood hosting and Tribune station editorials, not the scandal which was mainly noted only by the Philadelphia and niche news industry press), along with the cut of the Murrow award of his Eternal Flame coverage without reason. I'm the first to admit this article is a BLP balancing act (I'm not local to Philly and only had interest in Mendte because of my interest in the news industry; I have absolutely no connections to the subject), but cutting out content and replacing it with a tabloid mention in the lede is unacceptable for a BLP, and the scandal is mentioned in short form within the body of the article in acceptable terms. And of course, there's nobody stopping another editor from adding the information if it's acceptably sourced and balanced. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yul_Anderson

I wish to report Yul Anderson's wikipedia page, as it violates the biographies of living persons policy in several ways. It states that Anderson has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, however the source do not validate this claim. Secondly, it states that John Malkovich has used Anderson's cover version of Bob Dylan's All Along the Watchtower in his movie, The Dancer Upstairs. However, the source does not validate this claim once again. There is an overall lack of credible sources. Therefore the page should be reviewed by an administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamann2008 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:78.52.12.153 reverting the edits about the place of birth of that personality. He has been advised not to revert or getting blocked. Cruks (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Following the publication of a deeply stupid Israeli news article complaining that Wikipedia's article on Reuven Rivlin lists him as being born in Mandatory Palestine rather than Israel - which didn't exist at the time of his birth - the article has unfortunately had a series of IP editors trying repeatedly to "correct" it. It was semi-protected for a while but the problem has resumed. A further period of semi-protection would be appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, regulars at this noticeboard may recall that I recently came here to ask for eyes on an attack page aimed at John A. Shaw, about a report on post-invasion Iraq he had written for the U.S. government. I'm now back to ask editors to look at the article focused on Shaw himself, specifically, the Corruption and criminal investigation of Shaw section of the article. This section makes some extremely damaging claims against Shaw but sourcing is extremely narrow. In fact, much of the section relies on the same journalist's reporting that was the basis of the deleted attack article.

In my view, the content of this section violates WP:NPOV, and there are distinct issues of tone and balance. For instance, the insertion of extraordinary claims against Shaw, alleging his corruption and that he was the subject of a criminal investigation, are written in a manner that is neither cautious nor understated. Even the section heading "Corruption and criminal investigation" is itself non-neutral and appears intended to persuade readers immediately that Shaw is guilty of corruption. Additionally, sourcing of this section is limited, mainly drawing from the reporting of one individual. On this basis, I wonder if the information should even be included. I'm thinking about WP:WELLKNOWN here, which states, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

To sum up, from a BLP perspective, my overarching concern is that this section of the article is presenting a non-neutral, damaging account of Shaw's work in Iraq, with a paucity of sources to back it up. I would very much appreciate someone with a strong understanding of BLP guidelines taking a look and deciding what would be best to do here.

As I've mentioned here before, I am working on behalf of Jack Shaw, so I won't be making any edits to the article. I hope editors from this noticeboard will be interested to discuss how best to approach the issues in the Corruption... section. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed somewhat, and will finish up later today unless someone else gets to it first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty much done with this for now. If someone else would like to take a look, that might be a good idea since there are a lot of complicated criminal accusations involved. Also, I'd be glad to make further revisions in response to any valid criticisms from User:WWB Too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Anythingyouwant, I really appreciate the time you spent looking into this and reworking the page. Overall, a vast improvement. That said, I've left a detailed note on the article's Talk page outlining a few remaining issues. I am still concerned about how this section is presented, especially how much detail is given to allegations against Shaw, although no charges were filed, and nearly all of the reporting coming from a single investigative journalist. I'd be interested to hear whether editors here think that the section could be summarized or, if it is better to include more detail, to clarify some of the issues I've raised in the Talk page note. In particular, I wonder if FreeRangeFrog and MrX would mind taking a quick look, since they're familiar with the topic from my previous request here about a related article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks better thanks to Anythingyouwant's impeccable editing. It does strike me as still a little too detailed based on the amount of coverage in reliable sources that I was able to glean with a couple of quick searches. WP:UNDUE would seem to apply, especially given the reliance on primary sources.- MrX 17:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I will comment over at the article talk page as needed or wanted. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made some edits, including shortening that section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Mattress Performance case involves four allegations of criminal conduct by an individual I will refer to as "the accused." None of the allegations are supported by any form of evidence, none have resulted in prosecution, and all are against an individual who is non-notable outside the context of the case. All complainants spoke to each other prior to making the allegations, and the accused asserts they are the result of collusion. The allegation of rape by Emma Sulkowicz is central to the article's topic and probably has to stay, in spite of WP:BLPCRIME. I argue that the others should be omitted from the article. They are as follows.

• "Natalie" is the accused's ex-girlfriend. She alleges that months after their relationship ended, she came to see the accused's conduct as having been abusive, and some of their sexual interactions as having been non-consensual, even though she did not perceive this at the time. Her hearing resulted in a finding of "not responsible" after she failed to cooperate with the investigation.
• "Josie" is a former friend of the accused. She alleges that once, at a party, the accused kissed her and groped her without her permission. The accused denied this. He was initially found "responsible" by the university, but the decision was overturned on appeal partly because she did not testify.
• "Adam" more recently alleged that the accused touched him inappropriately. The accused was found "not responsible" in this case as well.

Troublingly, these have all been described as "sexual assault" allegations in the article. This is highly inappropriate language, for obvious reasons. None of them resulted in criminal prosecution, and it is extremely problematic to talk about the results of college disciplinary hearings, which lack the rigor of courts of law, and require only a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than proof, in relation to such extreme allegations. WP:BLPCRIME tells us to try to exclude information implying that persons who are not independently notable are accused of a crime. Accordingly, the accusations should not be in this article unless they are necessary, like the one by Sulkowicz.

An editor on the talk page made the case that the other allegations are relevant for the following reasons.

• When the story initially broke, three of the accusers were interviewed. I argue that the details of how the story broke are largely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about the performance and controversy.
• The accusers claim that meeting eachother and talking about the accused was what led them to file complaints, and this explains the long delay between the alleged events and the complaints. I argue that this is only the accusers' explanation, and including it requires us to also mention the accused's version. Neither version can be substantiated by facts, and this leads into tabloid territory, with the article describing competing stories that cannot be reliably sourced. I argue that including such non-fact-based stories would only detract from the article, and lead to further BLP violations.
• The other accusers are co-plaintiffs with Emma Sulkowicz in a civil suit against Columbia University and Barnard College. I argue that, as that case involves 28 plaintiffs, the fact that three of them have this in common is unimportant.

On the whole, I do not find a compelling reason to include mention of these other accusations against the recommendation of WP:BLPCRIME. As the accused has been the subject of what may be interpreted as death threats, BLP issues in this article must not be taken lightly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The allegations is what is being reported, and these were very well covered. I don't think the article contains BLP violations, as we merely report what reliable sources have said about the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations are BLP violations no matter how many reliable sources cover them. It's a BLP issue, not a WP:V issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment- There seem to be some inaccuracies above. According to the sources, the male alleging sexual assault has not talked to the other alleged victims and filed a complaint much later, saying he was motivated by the publicity related to the Mattress Performance art project. Sulkowicz says she decided to file her complaint alleging rape, after talking to a woman who alleged "intimate partner violence" against the accused. A third woman, who alleged groping, said she was told by friends who knew of her alleged groping that the accused "raped someone" and then decided to file a complaint. The sources do not support that all four sat down and together decided to file, but they all reportedly either talked to or heard about each other. They are also all apparently part of a Title IX complaint against Columbia University, alleging the university mishandled their sexual assault complaints.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: None of this is different in any way from what I wrote above, except for the contention that "Adam" did not talk to the other accusers. Here is a source which states that he at least talked to "Natalie," who alleged intimate partner violence: [36]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: Also this source: [37], written by "Josie," confirms she was friendly with Sulkowicz prior to the accusation. So it's true that all four talked to other accusers prior to the accusation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, it's odd that you would interpret that source that way, when it makes the opposite point. Josie writes:

There is a narrative spreading that pins me as “Friend of Mattress Girl,” filing a sexual assault complaint as part of a weird collusion among girlfriends. This narrative is entirely false. At the time, Emma and I were friendly; however, we were never friends. We had never hung out one-on-one and I’d never had her number in my phone. I also never knew the identity of Paul’s ex-girlfriend, who also filed a complaint against him, until two separate reporters let her name slip while interviewing me—assuming, maybe, that I knew her. But I didn’t. I still don’t even know what she looks like or what her last name is.

There are five living persons involved in this, and BLP applies to all. Only one (Sulkowicz) is mentioned in the article, but the other names are known, except for one. The article has to be written without implying that any of them are liars or don't matter. It's difficult to do that, but I think the version before you removed several of their accounts achieved it to some extent. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy has twice removed text [38][39][40] that has been in the article, in some form, since early in its existence. The article is about a work of performance art created after three women at Columbia filed sexual-assault complaints with the university in 2013 against another student. The university found the accused not responsible in two cases, and responsible in a third that was overturned on appeal. (There was a fourth complaint later from a male student; the accused was found "not responsible" there too.) In protest, one of the women, Emma Sulkowicz, a visual arts major, created Mattress Performance. This is the text that is being removed:

Mattress Performance was inspired by allegations of campus sexual assault at Columbia.^[1] ... [The article then discusses Sulkowicz's complaint.]

After hearing about Sulkowicz's allegations, three other students (two women and a man) filed complaints against the same student; in the first, the accused's former girlfriend alleged "intimate partner violence," while the second and third were allegations of unwanted grabbing and touching. The accused said the complaints were the result of collusion.^[2] The university found him "not responsible" in relation to the first and third, and in the second a verdict of "responsible" was overturned on appeal.^[3]

The case attracted wider interest when the three women gave interviews to the New York Post, which broke the story on 11 December 2013 without naming those involved.^[4][5] ...

The other complaints are a key part of what happened. An early New York Times article said: "Ms. Sulkowicz was one of a group of women, identified then only by pseudonyms — she had not yet decided to go fully public — who became the talk of Columbia this past winter, when an article in a student magazine, The Blue and White, described in detail their accounts of being sexually assaulted, and their frustrated searches for aid and justice from the university."

The other complaints are covered by numerous secondary sources, and were part of what led to a federal Title IX complaint against Columbia, which the Department of Education is investigating. In addition, our article doesn't name the accused. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment- Testimonies are forms of evidence, so one might argue there is/will be evidence. Nowhere do I see on the sexual assault page that it needs to be reported or prosecuted to count as sexual assault, so I think it's fine to call what happened that. In WP:BLPCrime, it is the name of the accused, not the accuser that should not be listed. I think these details are important, insofar it is often speaking to others which encourages victims to come forward, and of course the intent of protecting others from being raped by this person. Meanwhile, I am concerned that this page is listed as a redirect from the accused name.Frederika Eilers (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the accused's name redirects there. I will bring this up at RfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, I am going to restore the material about the other allegations. This was never only about Sulkowicz. No one here has agreed that it's a BLP violation, it's an essential part of the story, and has been in the article (in some form) since early in its creation. If you want to remove it, please gain consensus on talk, perhaps via an RfC. (But if you do post an RfC, please make the question short and very neutral, e.g. "should this (quote it) be in the article?") Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When including this material about the other allegations, please be sure to clarify that this is Sulcowikz' acount of the motivation behind the performance art. It also calls for a short statement about the accused's version, as also reported in secondary sources. Thanks. Minor4th 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I would prefer you wait for clear consensus before restoring the disputed material. If there is such a consensus, we can then talk about what details to include in order to maintain neutrality and the presumption of innocence. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it. Please observe BRD and dispute resolution, and gain consensus to remove it. Sammy, you have exceptionally strong views about this article, and you've said that if you're being unjust to the women, you "don't care," because you're prioritizing the accused's position. [41] This is making things harder than they need to be. Good writing will solve the problems at that article, and you're a good writer. Please work with me on it, not against me. That means acknowledging (a) that we don't know what happened; and (b) that we owe a duty of care to all five people. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're taking that out of context. I said that I don't care if the presumption of innocence is unjust to people who make criminal accusations. I don't, because it's policy under WP:BLPCRIME, and my purpose is not to determine justice.

The duty of care we have to three of those people would be best served by not mentioning them at all. If we do mention them, we have an obligation to mention the accused's defense, which, by your very reasoning, may become problematic for them. "Good writing" will never solve the problem of airing unproven criminal accusations. Not airing them is a great way to solve that problem, and says nothing either way about the accusers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Would someone who has the time please take a look at this article. For some reason that I can't put my finger on (apart from its length), it doesn't look quite right to me. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

ukexpat, I just spent a half-hour on this. Part of the problem is that the biography section is largely unsourced or has useless sources and part of the problem is that Coster started at a very young age and worked on some of the same projects as his father, Tom Coster. The credits seem to largely check out, though. [42] So, should we stub the biography section or tag it? Sourcing all the details present in the article will be hard. I couldn't find a lot out there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I had posted the following at [[43]], but I see:

"This isn't the right place to ask questions about how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines; this page is for discussion of how to change or improve this rule. For questions of that sort use the reliable sources noticeboard or, in this case, the biographies of living persons noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)"

So, I'll try here as suggested, although I'm not sure it really fits, since it was really a general question about what if any elements of court records are RS, but had a specific example to be concrete:

'This is a question about the usability of court records. Wikipedia has pages for me, [[44]] and Edward Wegman [[45]]. I have never edited either of these pages and have zero intent to do so, but I am interested in getting clarification, as the generally well-intentioned Wikipedia rules sometimes seem to forbid rock-solid real-world factual evidence.

My blog post Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, Milt Johns Sue John Mashey For $2 Million is itself obviously not RS, but it attaches copies of online court records of lawsuits related to events described in both Wikipedia pages above.

Those are the files named 1-1.pdf - 20.pdf. pp.15-18 of the detaled PDF (not RS of course) summarize the chronology, but also explain how to find the online records via PACER.

Of course, claims in court files easily may not be correct (and indeed, some of them are not), but [[46]] is even stronger: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

That seems to mandate that even the following sentence would absolutely be disallowed. Is that true?

"Edward Wegman filed a $1M lawsuit against John Mashey 0n 03/10/14 in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia and his Wegman Report coauthor Yasmin Said filed another there 06/12/15. Both were removed to Federal Court 04/15/15, and on 04/30/15 they submitted voluntary dismissals of the combined case." JohnMashey (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)' JohnMashey (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If the only source(s) for that information is the court document itself, then the information does not belong in an article. Is it currently in an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Various people and companies sue various other companies and people all the time. Such lawsuits are only worthy of mention in an encyclopedia if independent, reliable, secondary sources take note of them, and discuss their significance, and coverage of a lawsuit must not be given undue weight in an article. Special care should be taken with unresolved lawsuits, as mentioning them may falsely imply that someone did something wrong, when a court has not yet ruled. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think court cases are good for editor background and for understanding secondary sources but they make poor references for claims in articles. Court records can have motions and minutes that are not public (i.e. family court records for child support calculations that have income or information are not public so the public docket is incomplete). It takes special access to vouch for the entire records and its interpretation whence the need for secondary sources to make claims particularly for living people. Even a Supreme Court decision is usually easy to read but still needs a secondary source (reading them directly helps determine where to get the secondary source). If it's not covered, it's probably not notable enough. --DHeyward (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Primary sources can be used, with caution, for things like basic facts, such as that a lawsuit was filed. They should not be used to support the relative merit of any claims made by that primary source. GregJackP Boomer! 15:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  As noted above, court filings make poor references for claims in articles. Anyone can claim anything in filing a civil suit. The fact that a plaintiff filed only means that the plaintiff thinks that he was wronged, not that there is any merit to that claim. Do you have a specific question about whether information should be removed from one of the articles as inadequately sourced? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Also, I see that you have not been edit-warring or otherwise editing disruptively, but will comment for the benefit of other editors that the whole area has caused considerable controversy inside and outside Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia is subject to discretionary sanctions, so that disruptive editors can be topic-banned or blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

At "22:07, 9 June 2015," Gwenhope came in changing Crocker's name to a feminine name, began using feminine pronouns for Crocker, and added File:Christine Crocker.png (an image where Crocker is presenting as a woman), based on Facebook posts that Crocker made. I reverted at "01:45, 10 June 2015," stating, "Revert per WP:BLP; you need better sources for this material. Crocker is always changing between genders. Do not revert. I am taking this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard." With the Caitlyn Jenner/Bruce Jenner matter going on, and how heated that is, and with the Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning matter having been very heated, etc., more eyes are needed on this Cris Crocker matter. This is especially complicated because, like I noted, Crocker is always changing gender expression; see what is stated in Crocker's Wikipedia article about that, and the transgender, genderqueer, gender bender articles and MOS:Identity guideline for more on what this topic concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see this 2014 "Being a Non-Transitioned Transgender Person" video and this 2015 "Thank You, Bruce" video from the official Chris Crocker YouTube channel, and this latest video ("The Full Truth") from that channel...where Crocker seems to be finally transitioning to a female identity for good (this is the video that Gwenhope based the article changes on). Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Something else that needs consideration when rewording if we start using female pronouns throughout the article is that the wording needs to be coherent; for example, Crocker identified as a gay male for years. It is therefore challenging to use female pronouns regarding some of the sexual orientation content. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, Your mention on how to refer to a person's past gender-wise is interesting. That debate is currently being held in a very complex manner. I do agree somethings might need some minor rewriting to make the article more clarified given the transition. Regardless that debate is not for this page. In light of the most recent video, your comment regarding "Crocker is always changing between genders" is inaccurate. When they first appeared they were presenting feminine. Apparently as the limelight grew, she felt pressured into presenting masculine while also on her own journey discovering her gender identity. There's no reason to punish her discussion of her journey. Specifically, Crocker used to present primarily female until a masculine period that lasted from about three to five years during popularity, but has since come to realize that wasn't who she was. And regardless, your revert destroyed any inclusion of the updated information regarding this person, not just related to gender identity, but to where they live and such. Gwenhope (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Gwenhope (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I know of that WP:Village pump discussion (I participated in it; a WP:Permalink for it is here). As for where this Crocker matter should be discussed, this page is an appropriate place to discuss this since WP:BLP matters are supposed to be taken very seriously. Like I stated at NeilN's talk page, in the case of Crocker's gender identity, Crocker has yet to state that we should start using female pronouns and the name "Christine"; therefore, we should not be using such throughout Crocker's Wikipedia article, and certainly not without better sources. Nothing I stated above about Crocker is inaccurate, as is clear by Crocker's own words in YouTube videos addressing gender and/or gender expression, and currently in Crocker's Wikipedia article (which is supported by WP:Reliable sources). I stated that "Crocker is always changing between genders" because Crocker has essentially stated that more than once, including not identifying as one gender or the other...but rather a combination of both. And we should definitely keep in mind that when Crocker presented as female before, Crocker never insisted that we use female pronouns and/or the name "Christine." This is partly why many in the transgender community have been upset with Crocker. And, as you know, Crocker has addressed other reasons that many in the transgender community have been upset with his/her gender expression. In other words, Crocker's gender expression has often not been one thing and did not adhere to what many transgender people feel is the expression of a person who is actually transgender; some were telling Crocker to identify as genderqueer instead, and so on. And as you know, Crocker has addressed transgender people having different gender journeys. When it is clear that Crocker is permanently transitioning to a female gender identity, WP:Reliable sources will likely have picked that up and then we can proceed from there. And it is easy to go back into the edit history and retrieve data.

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this discussion since it is currently on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Page has only one line of content which redirects to a non-existing page. Hence, this page can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamtadalal (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please run their eyes over this section of a BLP. It has been added recently and is well sourced. A change of heading would be A Good Thing but I'm more concerned about how we deal with situations where it is basically one spouse making serious allegations about another. Are we ok to leave this in? - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed the section linked above, partly because of doubts re: balance but mainly because I'm hoping it will stop the ongoing edit war until we arrive at some sort of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive223#Avera Mengistu. This is still a blatant BLP violation. Now the subject of the article has been expanded to two possible names - either Avera Mengistu or Abraham Mengistu. This new name comes from yet another non-RS that cites "Israeli media reports" as the source - however, these reports do not exist anywhere and editor who supports this info has not supplied them. This is a pseudo biography that is pushing an agenda and needs to be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There are still a few days to go on the AfD and despite three "speedy delete" !votes, nobody has provided a reason why the article qualifies for speedy deletion. I think you're going to have to wait until the AfD is closed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles that are clear violations of BLP should not have to wait the full seven days for BLP - THAT is why three people want to speedy delete this atrocity. And I still say there's no evidence this isn't a hoax, considering the questionable motives/honesty of people contributing to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Max Cryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I represent the author. Various people using different names in recent weeks continue to change this entry against his wishes and to include inaccurate information. Using different names, these people make exactly the same changes. I have once again changed it back. Nigel2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel2014 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nigel2014: If you indeed represent the author, you need to go read this. Once you do, you'll understand that you need to create an edit request in the talk page, which will be evaluated and answered by other editors. This article is not your property, nor Mr. Cryer's. In articles we say what the sources about the subjects say, nothing more and nothing less. You've attempted to turn this article into an advertisement for the subject, while removing sourced material and information. The process is you suggest changes, someone else makes them. If you continue to edit the article the way you've edited it so far, your account can and will be blocked. We welcome improvements, but please familiarize yourself with our guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Paora: et al. I removed his birthdate since its source seemed to be WP:SYNTH. Cryer is a semi-public figure and is deserving of a certain amount of privacy. I noticed that NZ libraries don't use his birth year which gives a strong indication it isn't public knowledge. -- haminoon (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tatito Hernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi

Someone wrote a biography about me. I don't authorise anyone to write biography about me, the info published is false. I request delete this post about me. That post is inappropriate, Below the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatito_Hernández

Please delete the entire information and disable this link.

Thanks, I'll be appreciate your attention to this matter.

Rafael Tatito Hernandez Montanez redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatitohernandez (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As you are an elected representative I don't think there is a case for the article to be deleted. As you are a public figure no-one needs to be authorised to write about you. However I noticed there were some serious WP:BLP violations on your page which I have removed. Could you please let us know if there is anything else incorrect in your article. -- haminoon (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed some of the personal information. Although it can be sourced, is not necessary per WP:NPF. As to deletion, that's unlikely. There doesn't seem to be any other problems with the article that I can see. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just read through the entry and the info seems to mirror similar entries for members of congress/other elected bodies. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've started an RfC about List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. The article has no sources and includes lots of living people. The RfC hasn't attracted comments from any additional editors, so the input of BLP experts would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead about Dennis Hastert says this:

I honestly don't know what we should do here. The statute of limitations has apparently expired, so he probably won't get a chance to prove his innocence in court. So do we just leave that paragraph there forever? It's well-sourced. On the other hand, maybe we should keep it out of the lead but put it in the body of the Wikipedia article. Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that this high-profile case, which isn't as yet even about alleged abuse, is all over the place and we have a ton of well-verified but awfully NEWSy content--you know what that means on Wikipedia: we'll fill it up to the max. However, that last sentence, I'm going to cut it since it's only about a single statement from a number of years ago and is thus, in my opinion, not leadworthy. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait a sec. I could see getting rid of that whole paragraph or keeping that whole paragraph, but deleting that last sentence strikes me as extremely problematic. When we describe charges we're always supposed to include denials. Per WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.". You really want the accusation to go in the lead while the denial is buried deep in the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

? That makes no sense. He's accused in 2015, and you want to include a statement from 2006 in which he denied having abused a student who could not have been one of the three he's suggested of having abused now? It's a different allegation. If you really think the BLP is served by either removing the paragraph or restoring that tortured logicism that I removed, you made the wrong choice. Just scrap the whole paragraph. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, all of the recent allegations are about very old behavior, when he was a teacher in the 1970s.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but that's not my point. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The student that he denied abusing in 2006 is almost certainly one of the three that he's now alleged to have abused. His name is Steve Rheinboldt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the bigger question involves this statement in WP:BLP.... "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Here the statute of limitations has expired, so what do we do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Sexuality says, "Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality." I don't think this stuff should be in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the lead. Saying otherwise is naive. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Cwobeel. In the lead, we are supposed to faithfully summarize the article's contents, lending reasonably proportionate weight to each. To omit mention of an important and well-sourced aspect of the article is contrary to policy and would do a disservice to readers. This is particular true when the mention of the allegation is a mere one sentence of the lead.

Moreover, there is absolutely no BLP violation in the article. Re the presumption of innocence discussed above - this seems to be a red herring here. The article does not (and never has) made any comment as to guilt or innocence, truth or untruth - rather, it simply and neutrally reports what the allegation (as reported in reliable sources) is. Neutrality^talk 04:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

All valid points, but the fact remains that this is a very unusual situation where a BLP subject is being publicly accused of sex crimes long after expiration of the statute of limitations. We are supposed to avoid WP:Recentism, presume innocence, and take special care to give sex stuff appropriate weight. Are you folks planning on leaving these unproved accusations of sex crimes at the end of the lead indefinitely? I think it's better to cover it only in the article body. It's very stigmatizing. Of course, if he's guilty, then he deserves stigma, and if guilt is established then we can give it to him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the presumption of innocence means, though. It means that we can only report these as accusations and that we must be careful to never imply that he's definitely guilty in article text; but it has no bearing on how prominent or how thoroughly those accusations are covered in the article. That's decided based on how the accusations are covered in reliable sources, which I think supports a full summary in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, I have already conceded that every last detail can go into the body of the Wikipedia article, and that much of those details can go into the lead. The only thing I dispute at this point is whether the lead needs to say that the alleged abuse was "sexual" and that the lead needs to describe the alleged victims' gender. Putting that stuff in the body of the article seems adequate, many reliable sources do likewise (i.e. not putting it into their headline or first couple paragraphs), and there are many pertinent Wikipedia policies besides presumption of innocence. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist...." "Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality...." "Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism....." "[N]ews reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news...." No charges have been brought about this. No victim has stepped forward. No admission has been made. The presumption is innocence, and the subject issued a denial in 2006.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

By know, given the numerous comments here and at the RFC, may you want to consider WP:DROPTHESTICK? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't have replied to Aquillion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are replying to all comments with the same failed arguments, that is why I suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the four policies/guidelines that I quoted to Aquillion, did I quote any of them previously in this Hastert section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC at article talk page

There is an RFC at the article talk page. The issue is whether unofficial allegations against Hastert (i.e. no criminal charges) that are described in the lead should say "sexual abuse" or just "abuse".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Did y'all seriously need an RFC to settle this? Given the massive and widespread media coverage (from very reliable sources), pretty much all of which put the nature of the allegations front-and-center, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could argue that the info shouldn't be in the lede. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do. The source that you cited in the RFC doesn't mention that the alleged abuse was sexual until after the headline, and after the first and second paragraphs. Why should we promote it to the lead? The eighth paragraph of that source says the alleged victim was male. Should we promote that to the lead too? I won't recite the pertinent Wikipedia policies right here, since I have done so in the RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I replied @ the RFC, but: other articles do put the allegations in the headline. I just linked the most recent story. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish to bring to the attention of the Admins the page about Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Mr Mistry is one of the top industrialists in India. He is currently heading the Tata group of companies in India. There is some dispute on his wiki page about his nationality. There is definitely a reference given in his wiki page to a Times of India article which says he is an Irish national. Never the less, considering that he is living and working in India, i think he should be described as an Indo-Irish businessman or an Irish-Indian businessman, and not as an Irish businessman. Characterizing him as an Irish businessmen would only provoke xenophobia among a section of Indians who read his wikipedia biography. Additionally, consider the fact that his father Pallonji Mistry is characterized as an Irish Indian in his wikipedia page. It is surely strange that the father is being characterized as Irish Indian in his wikipedia page while the son is being characterized as Irish in his wikipedia page. Anyways, i would like some kind of ruling on this issue since this is a matter that can come up again and again in the context of other wikipedia biographies of other immigrants. I would like to add that this is a general dispute concerning all immigrants. It is not specific to one individual. Soham321 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute about his nationality. He has self-declared as Irish and even explained why that is so. The rest of this matter is being discussed at the article talk page. If nothing comes out of that then, yes, it may need more eyes. I'd be surprised if nothing does come out of it, though, because it isn't remotely contentious. This looks like forum shopping, bearing in mind the exact same post was made at WP:AN. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no forum shopping. One of the admins at WP:AN suggested that i could take this up either on this forum or in the talk page of the article. I prefer to take this issue up on this forum since this is an issue concerning all immigrants. It is not specific to Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Consider also the fact that Cyrus's father Pallonji Mistry is being characterized as an Irish Indian in his own wikipedia page. Where is the consistency? Soham321 (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So fix his father's article? Have you even bothered checking Talk:Cyrus Pallonji Mistry? We've got enough problems with Indian nationalists already without creating yet more storms in teacups. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no expectation that a son must have the same nationality as his father. This really is just a matter of what reliable sources say about him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that both the son and the father are Irish citizens who are living in and well settled in India for many years. There is no reason to believe that they will ever go back to settle down in Ireland. We can consider them as immigrants. It is like Indian immigrants to the US being called Indian-Americans. Likewise we can consider the Mistrys to be Irish-Indian or Indo-Irish or something similar. At any rate there is a discrepancy in the wikipedia pages of the son and the father which should be addressed. You cannot describe the father as Irish-Indian and the son as Irish without failing the test of consistency. Soham321 (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC) And this is an interesting reference. Cyrus Mistry and the mammy factor at the heart of TataExtract:"I've talked with Cyrus, and I can tell you that he's neither an Indian nor an Irish nationalist.Although he is an Irish citizen and a permanent resident of India, he sees himself as a global citizen. The colour of his passport is not important."Soham321 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I made a suggestion in this edit and summary. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is quite reasonable in my opinion.Soham321 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, it won't work. We got here because people were stressing "Indian" and I discovered that he was not in fact Indian. They'll be back simply because that is what a lot of Indians like to do: they bask in the reflected glory of those with whom they feel they are associated and they make appropriate associations to enhance that (for the latter, see Sanskritisation). In a sense, it is what underpins the caste system. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

After some reflection, i wish to place on record my objection to the above comment of Sitush. In my opinion, Sitush's comments smack of racism. The comments are racist, insulting towards Indians, and completely unacceptable generalizations. I request Sitush not to repeat such comments.Soham321 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sitush, you have all of the article to explain this, based on reliable sources--in text, which is much better than a couple of syllables, hyphenated or not... Drmies (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to explain, and you are assuming that drive-bys read articles. I give it a month, tops. - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

The subject is in the news currently and this article is being edited rapidly. Two potential BLP violations are repeatedly being added:

• Her date of birth and full name, which are sourced from a birth certificate posted online.
• A reason for her being a victim of alleged hate crimes [47], which doesn't appear in any references.

This article needs to be watched by more people with a good understanding of the BLP policy over the next few days. -- haminoon (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Could someone clarify this issue raised at Talk:Rachel_Dolezal#birthdate_and_middle_name? The editor appears to be claiming that if a reliable secondary source mentions they've seen and checked a birth certificate then the other details of that birth certificate can be used in the BLP. -- haminoon (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I really don't think these are the issues here. The birth certificate was received by CNN from the parents, and nobody is disputing its authenticity. The main issues, as you can see from the talk page, are the POV-pushing trolls trying to use this to mock transgender acceptance and Caitlyn Jenner, and have fun as part of the #WrongSkin trolling. [48] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat the plea for people to watch this article. Material is being added as fact when the source is a quote, unreliable source, or an opinion piece. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Tim Hunt article has been edited over 100 times in the past 5 or so days since he made some controversial comments. A quick glance at the edit history shows many reversals of vandalism or removal of inflammatory content. In the interest of remaining encyclopedic and not turning into a tabloid, I think there should be a hold on the page until the dust settles a bit and the section of the article regarding the comments can be brought up to the Wikipedia standards of being fair neutral and unbiased, reflecting the whole story. SchighSchagh (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This older gentleman, older than me at least, said something wry about men and women which was not politically correct. Perhaps unwise. He also won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Due weight ought to lead us to conclude that we pay far more attention to the second accomplishment than the first teapot tempest. I agree with semi-protection of the page for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that some mention of the controversy is warranted, but I don't think it should be the dominant part of the article. I do think that the phrasing in the article needs to be worked on since this sounds pretty biased: "in which he commented about the problems he has with female scientists". There has to be a better way of putting this. Maybe something like this?

On 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?"" at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists. During the speech Hunt remarked upon his reputation as a male chauvinist and endorsed gender segregated laboratories. Hunt also commented upon past interactions he has had with female scientists, stating:

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry."

This isn't perfect but it does somewhat solve the issue with the term "problems". It's sort of an apt description for Hunt but at the same time it's also a fairly loaded word. The rest of the section needs a little tightening since it does read a bit like a newspaper, though. I'd also somewhat endorse a temporary semi-protect, although I'll say that the page isn't really being vandalized as much as say, Rachel Dolezal's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think the IP/new account vandalism isn't so terrible--could have been worse. The latest IP edit was very positive, and there were only two instances of vandalism in the last fifty edits, so I don't think semi-protection is necessary right now. The "new and improved" content still takes up too much space though, relatively speaking. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please include references and more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric staffer1984 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No BLP issues, and they pass WP:NFOOTY.Not an issue for here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Source(s) are incorrectly cited, citations are limited, and information is lacking. Please move this to a draft space before publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric staffer1984 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SOFIXIT, Eric staffer1984. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This article has information which is fictitious and many facts are not true regarding the individual. Many parts are inconsistent and not factual. The biography is significantly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.233 (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As just one example... RCDS does not offer a PHD, therefore this individual cannot have earned a PHD from there. Please confirm before publishing. There are many other facts which are inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.233 (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people applies here, I believe: the article completely lacks reliable sourcing. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This article, about me, is defamatory. It states that I defended the law school proposal at Trinity Western University "that advoated anti-homosexual admittance policies based on the concept of freedom of religion". In fact, the law school proposal did NOT advocate such policies at all nor did I. The truth is that I defended the right of Trinity Western University to have a law school although, as a religiously-based, private university, they require that all faculty students and staff adhere to a religous definition of marriage (one man and one woman). Hence the issue of freedom of religion. The sentence in the article implies that I and the proposal advocated this policy and I believe this to be defamatory. I supported TWUs legal and constituionally protected right to adhere to their religious beliefs because I believe such freedom is critical in a democratic pluralistic society. In addition, I was not called to the bar in 1969. I am not that old. I believe my call date was 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.203.5 (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting. I have no idea what this passage, from the cited news report, means: "Trinity Western’s community covenant asks students and staff to refrain from sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman, which some say discriminates against those in same-sex relationships." That is, I don't understand what kind of act would violate the supposed sacredness of someone else's marriage? one's own marriage? But that's all by the by. The one source, this news report, is just that--one report from the local news. I see no indication in the article that WP:PROF or WP:GNG are met (in other words, that the subject is notable--she may well be, but the article doesn't prove it), and in addition, it seems to me that this biography of a living person (written by Jeremy112233 and not significantly improved since then) violates our policy by suggesting a mostly negative point of view, in content (undue focus on one single aspect) and word choice (in interpreting the admittedly clear-as-mud "community covenant"). I'm going to delete it, citing our BLP policy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the deletion. I can't remember when I added the article, but if she doesn't add GNG, then it should go. Thanks! Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

New user Rishaudrikants (talk · contribs) keeps changing Craig Heisinger to claim he has five sons (instead of the four noted by the existing source), without providing a source that would support that claim. I tried to find such a source and failed; all sources only give the four sons previously noted. I don't want to keep reverting him (and would soon run into WP:3RR if I did, since it's not clear to me if the BLP exemption to 3RR applies and the edits aren't obvious vandalism), so I'm reporting the issue here as suggested by WP:NOT3RR. I hope somebody can help. Sideways713 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) He has another son so jerk it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishaudrikants (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly unaware of policy and demonstrated bad faith. This user should be blocked and the article could use temporary protection. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

One or two users at the page of actor Jason Isaacs are repeatedly inserting highly contested material about the actor's personal life accompanied by multiple dubious sources. They refuse to engage in discussion of the material and have repeatedly undone attempts to remove unsourced information. They are becoming more persistent and belligerent with no explanation as to why they are so flagrantly violating rules, regulation and policy on BLPs. Thanks for any assistance providedBasic Bicycle (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think that the Independent, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Scottish Herald are dubious sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the talk page, he believes the Independent makes up most of its interviews. There appears to be a WP:CIR issue here, I think. I have warned the user not to delete reliably sourced information again. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Basic Bicycle, the evaluation of the contested material is discussed on Talk:Jason Isaacs page. You could help by backing up your claims regarding the dubious nature of the used references, to the substance of concrete materials used by citations. DBWikis (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NB: There is an ongoing SPI related to Basic Bicycle. DBWikis (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Basic Bicycle has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought links within articles were referenced to Wiki links - not outside websites. There are 2 outside links in this bio - 1) fr his daughter Cherish Lee & 2) to his school. If I am in error, nevermind.

Jami DeBaca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdebaca (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Done - @Jjdebaca: Usually ELs shouldn't be in the main article body (see WP:EL), although exceptions for specific usages exist. I removed those 2 links. If such external links verify any on the article's claims and are reliable, they could also be converted into regular references or cite webs. GermanJoe (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Mgr. Igor Slobodník (*23.10.1962, Bratislava) je slovenský diplomat, od 1. mája 2015 štátny tajomník Ministerstva zahraničných vecí a európskych záležitostí, od augusta 2010 do apríla 2015 pôsobil ako mimoriadny a splnomocnený veľvyslanec Slovenskej republiky v Nemecku. Narodil sa v rodine Dušana Slobodníka ( Dušan Slobodník - Wikipédia ) a Viktórie Slobodníkovej (Vytvára sa Viktória Slobodníková - Wikipédia ). Kariérnu dráhu začal ako redaktor a novinár v bratislavskej redakcii ČSTK a týždenníku Výber. V období rokov 1991-1992 bol šéfredaktorom časopisu Výber. Vyštudoval rusistiku a anglistiku na Filozofickej fakulte Univerzity Komenského. V diplomatických službách pôsobí od roku 1992, keď nastúpil na rezort diplomacie ako osobný tajomník ministra zahraničných vecí vtedajšej ČSFR. V rokoch 1992 až 1996 bol zástupcom vedúceho zastupiteľského úradu SR v Kodani. Vo funkcii vedúceho zastupiteľského úradu SR v Dánsku následne pôsobil do roku 1997, keď bol vymenovaný do pozície veľvyslanca SR vo Veľkej Británii (1997-2000). V období rokov 2000-2001 bol členom tímu hlavného vyjednávača Slovenskej republiky pre vstup do EÚ, v rokoch 2001-2003 politickým riaditeľom Ministerstva obrany Slovenskej republiky, a vtedy začalo jeho pôsobenie ako stáleho predstaviteľa Slovenskej republiky pri NATO v Bruseli. V rokoch 2008-2010 zastával funkciu politického riaditeľa Ministerstva zahraničných vecí Slovenskej republiky. Igor Slobodník je autorom viacerých prekladov najmä významných historiografických diel, ktoré súvisia s jeho študijným zameraním, najbližšie mu vychádza preklad štandardného diela popredného britského historika Orlanda Figesa pod názvom: Ruská revolúcia : 1891 – 1991 (2015), spolu s bratom Martinom Slobodníkom (sinológom a tibetológom Martin Slobodník - Wikipédia ) preložil bestseller Krvavé územie: Európa medzi Hitlerom a Stalinom (2013) od amerického historika Timothyho D. Snydera. Podieľal sa na preklade diela Alexandra Solženicyna Súostrovie Gulag: 1918 – 1956 (1991) a na jeho reedícii v modernej jazykovej úprave (2012). Je ženatý, má dvoch synov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:A63F:E77C:35D3:E154:79AC:1549 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the message is here, but following is a translation from Google Translate, that you can use to start a Wikipedia article if you would like.

71.248.169.100 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Vinik is a supporter of the new Jewish community center in Tampa, but not to the tune of $4 million. Tampa Bay Bucs co-chairman Bryan Glazer donated $4 million to that and the future center now is called the Bryan Glazer Family JCC. Vinik and his wife pledged $1.5 million to the new center. This is documented in the May 22, 2015 issue to The Jewish Press of Tampa. The website for the Jewish Press is www.jewishpresstampa.com. You can also verify this by calling the Tampa JCC and Federation at (813) 264-9000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.143.188 (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed on Jeffrey Vinik. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

108.222.190.105 (talk · contribs) is claiming to be Misty Edwards and is wanting her personal information removed from her article. I reverted her once citing ownership of articles and referred her to WP:BIOSELF, but I don't really know what to do from here. She has since removed this information again. Relevant diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 Ben^Yes? 01:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing on this article is pretty weak, and I'll therefore take it to AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that it was deleted back in 2010, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Edwards.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The new deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Edwards 2.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)