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

Hi,

Just to ask that my year of my birthday is wrong under Richard Bella. Instead of 04/03/1964 it should be 04/03/1967.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbellar (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Rbellar Hi, I checked two sources [1] [2] and they list 1964 as the birth year. Can you link us to a reliable source that supports 1967? Even a primary source works in this instance.--NØ 17:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I have copied this discussion from WP:AN as it's better dealt with here. Looking at WP:RS/N it seems sports-reference is generally considered reliable and I see they mention Olympics historians involved in their site. Still I can't help thinking the amount of checking they do for the date of birth of a basketball player from the Central African Republic in 1988 is not very high. I have found two references which do give the DOB as 1967, the FIBA website and Lega Basket Serie A website. (From the website and also the Italian article on the person, it looks like they played for Italian teams at one stage.) IMO these are probably better references than sports-reference.com although I won't object if someone wants to handle this differently but IMO the 1967 date either needs to be one of the dates there or the year needs to be removed, given we do have RS and a statement from someone saying to be the subject. BTW, the Italian and French articles look to be slightly better than ours and do give the 1967 date although the only source I saw for this was the LBA website. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Would a solution be to have Rbellar confirm his ID with OTRS, and then we could take his statement, along with the other sources, as sufficient to change the date to 1967? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As long as there is an acceptable RS source in the article that matches whats provided to OTRS thats fine. A note can be posted on the talkpage. The problem is when we have RS saying one thing, and the subject saying another, at which point it usually ends up getting removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please consider participating at Talk:Steve King#RfC: Most openly affiliated with white nationalsm. R2 (bleep) 00:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The statement: "Cordileone has become known for his outspoken opposition to LGBT rights, including same-sex civil marriage.[1][better source needed]" was in the heading of this article and yet is unsupported.

My edit to update the sentence to properly reflect the content of the cited article, and his position generally – which is to affirm and support marriage between man and woman, to share his faith – was reverted.

We were left with an assertion rather than a fact backed by sources. Reluctantly I've now removed the sentence completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnolds (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rnolds:? That [1] there in your quote, that was a reference to an article from The Catholic Herald, which did, in fact support and back that statement. That [better source needed] was a request from Roscelese (talk · contribs), who restored the text that you rephrased, but asked for a better source. Then you deleted it again. I restored, providing a better source, namely the New York Times, generally considered a rather good news source. Then you deleted that too. I see you are discussing this on Talk:Salvatore Cordileone#Intro paragraph. Here or there, pick one, but please do discuss rather than continuing to delete. --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: Sorry I didn't notice you had found a different source. We're in tricky territory here where the language in my trusted news source (Catholic Herlad) is preferred over your trusted news source (New York Times). We would both beg to disagree with one another on the best language. Perhaps removing the sentence entirely is the way to go? I'm not sure his thoughts on marriage are a defining or particularly notable feature of his priesthood. We still have the section on his views about marriage within the article. Perhaps time will tell later what his legacy is? Happy to continue the discussion on the talk page. I agree now that it appears to be a contentious issue we should work together to resolve it before making further updates. Thank you.

Cordileone's opposition to gay rights is absolutely one of the best-known (ie. notable) things about him. You cannot ask us to remove text that is copiously supported by reliable sources because you have failed to persuade anyone to make Wikipedia into free promotion for the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see Patrick Little (Senate candidate). On a redirect, there is no way to source the information in the categories. In this case, it is clearly very negative information about a living person, but it probably is correct information. We wouldn't accept such categories on articles without being referenced in the article text, but what to do here (and in similar cases)? Fram (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove them, WP:RCAT is the guideline that says when redirects are categorised, and it's tighter than for articles. Iffy★Chat -- 12:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, RCAT would allow these categories per the "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category" argument, I think. However, in my view BLP doesn't allow these categories, but I would like further input as my removal is disputed (in good faith!) by User:SmokerOfCinnamon. Fram (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The presence of a category is information, and if it constitutes contentious information about a living person, and it's not sourced, it should be removed. Though I suppose if if it's referenced at the redirect target then WP:MINREF is satisfied: readers typically don't "see" a redirect so it would be sourced "where it appears". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO the categories need to not only be sourced, they need to be mentioned in the article text. We shouldn't have contentious categories which aren't given by info in the article text since if they aren't significant enough for discussion in the article text, they aren't significant enough for categorisation. However the only one this clearly affects is IMO the holocaust denier one since I'm sure there are neo-Nazis who agree the holocaust happened, it just didn't kill enough people since we need to kill them all. The antisemitism and white nationalist ones would seem to automatically flow from neo-Nazi although admittedly in an article I don't think it's likely that it will mention someone is a neo-Nazi but not discuss their white nationalist and antisemitic views. Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would the redirect be categorised with categories that only relevant to actual biographies, that are not sourced in the redirect OR at the target article? To use Little - holocaust denier is not sourced at the redirect. Its not even in the target article, and the sources in the target article do not state he is a holocaust denier anyway. If the target page contained that information and reliably sourced, it would be no issue. A redirect is not an article, its a technical signpost to the relevant information at a different location. There is no information on Little being a holocaust denier at the relevant page, no reliable source stating they are a holocaust denier, its an outright BLP violation. So given the above comments I'm nixing it. There probably should be a clarification somewhere though - either dont categorise redirects, if you do, the category must be sourced and contained within the target article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I really do not think we want to be encouraging references in redirects regardless. A flat 'Any category on a redirect must be justified by content within the target article and referenced with a reliable source'. Otherwise I forsee a situation where the information isnt in the target article, but because the redirect has a reference it has the 'insert label here' categories. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I actually think the white nationalist and anti-semitic and and most of the other categories should go. While you probably could argue that they are effectively supported by the neo-Nazi bit, as I said above I find it hard to imagine there won't be any content in an actual article to support such categories more directly. There's non here since there's no reason to go into so much detail for some random declared candidate on the redirect target. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No argument from me there. I was more commenting that one would at least be compliant with the policy (in thats sourced and covered in the relevant article). Fram is correct however, this would fall broadly into the area of where we *can* add cats to redirects per the guidelines. But I dont think it should be unless there is actual discussion on the article rather than just the minimum required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks, the World Patent Marketing section of Whitaker's article has conflicting claims about when that company was shut down. 2017 looks correct, but I'm finding it hard to nail down in 2 minutes of looking and it's already way past my bedtime. The article is going to be seeing a huge amount of traffic given both his (new) prominence AND the various articles about World Patent Marketing coming out. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Its because it was an ongoing process. The FTC 'shut down' the company by court order in early 2017 - effectively ending its business. It was finally settled in court in May(ish) 2018. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Also it doesnt help someone (I assume by accident) over-wrote the FTC release with the MNT article URL. You can tell by the publish/access dates. I have fixed that, and will try and re-word it to be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've tidied it a bit. If anyone wants to do a definitive timeline, the primary documents from the FTC website have all the details from the initial shutdown to its eventual closure. The BLP issue here of course being, how much was he involved and how much weight to give to it? Unlike some of the advisory board, he took fees, as well as recording promotional materials. So by any standards his input was more than trivial. (A lot of advisory boards are just, 'get some famous names on it'). But ultimately he was not running the company, so I dont think more than 2 short paragraphs is necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Vcuttolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added blatantly defamatory material to Ocasio-Cortez's page regarding her stance on Israel-Palestinian conflict, over an extended period of time: [3] [4] [5].

Should this be enough for a block? The editor also has a history in engaging edit war and adding fringe materials. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why the editor Tsumirikia has declared war on me. It appears that my edits to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article set him off, although it is unclear why. He certainly reverted all my edits on that page, including when I apparently offended him by capitalizing "arab" into "Arab". Clearly a revert was necessary there - can't ba capitalizing proper nouns! In the section on Ocasio's political positions, Ocasio is quoted as being upset at Israel shooting 60 "protesters" during the 2018 Gaza border protests. The lengthy quote from Ocasio makes clear that she believed that Israel shot peaceful civilians doing nothing more than holding signs and chanting, which is the opposite of the truth. As the Wikipedia article (linked above) on the situation makes abundantly clear, the overwhelming number of those shot were members of Hamas, considered a terrorist group by the US and the EU; and the shootings happened in response to violence from the Gaza side. This is a very necessary and relevant point to raise in that context. I also supplied sources for my edits, including CNN, but Tsumikiria reverted all that. He considers my edits to be not only a BLP violation, but a "severe BLP violation", and my comments somehow "defamatory" of Ms. Ocasio. Show me one word that I wrote that is not accurate, and show me where I defamed Ms. Ocasio, while correcting the Gaza protest situation. I don't know, maybe it's a lower case "arab" thing. Vcuttolo (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how truthful your might think your edits were, they were violations of several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and were thus unacceptable. The reference only provides general information, with no association to the subject. Your use of "Ignoring..." and this reply of yours are entirely original research, because it is your personal analysis/opinion, and synthesis of two unrelated statements. By mentioning Hamas, are implying that the subject is guilty by association, and hinting that the subject supports such organization, which is utterly false and misleading. Not to mention you're editorializing and falsifying quote in your second source. You continually added false and misleading material on an article of a living person - precisely an act of libel. You have repeatedly abused your privilege of editing by ignoring other editors' alert on editing WP:ARBPIA related topics, engaging in edit wars, and persistent disruptive editing, so I now propose such privilege to be revoked. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I made it very clear to this editor in August that they could not edit ARBPIA content until they had 500 edits. I'll deal with this. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Vcuttolo, the article you used as a source is not reliable. You wrote that Ocasio-Cortez ignored the large numbers of protesters who were armed members of Hamas (considered a terrorist group by the US and the EU). In fact, Human Rights Watch said the protesters were unarmed and your source makes its contrary claim based on an MSNBC reporyer's statement that some of them had sling-shots. There is no evidence that any of the "armed" protesters were members of Hamas or that the victims were. Also, "armed" is misleading since the general understanding is that people are carrying firearms. TFD (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

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

The article says she married her biological brother, but the cited source says she was accused and denies it. She just won a seat in Congress and the page is protected. Someone needs to fix this soon. 47.156.21.196 (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been removed.--Auric talk 11:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This article contains names and DOB's of children, it's partly sourced to Daily Mail and youtube, etc. It may need a nuke or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking for other eyes and source suggestions from editors for the entry on Ilana Mercer. Currently, the entry seems to rely overwhelmingly on Mercer's own columns and blog posts. The handful of secondary source citations come primarily from places like World Net Daily and people like Peter Brimelow who are themselves fairly extreme. There's not a ton of reliable secondary information on her views, but the sources that do mention her make it fairly clear that she's kind of a fringe figure. The SPLC, and Slate both describe her as a far-right/white nationalist type. Nblund ^talk 20:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's seriously bad, out of the 65 references, I count at least 45 authored by her. Several of those refs that say World Net Daily go straight to her own website, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and the rest that are actually from WND are written by her as well. The rest of the refs all seem to be biased in her favor too. It really needs to be re-written and/or stubbed or sent to AfD. I went ahead and tagged it in the meantime. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and made major cuts. I also merged separate entries on two of her books in to the page. Further cuts are probably warranted. Nblund ^talk 17:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kc2290: has reverted many of those changes. Just to lay out the objections here specifically:

1. The article relies too much on primary and self published sources. Just because Mercer wrote something on her blog or in an article doesn't mean it is notable. The same goes for statements by other fringe figures such as Peter Brimelow. It might be reasonable to have a couple of citations for basic information about her books, but this is just too much. If it isn't mentioned by a reliable secondary source, it is probably WP:UNDUE to discuss it on Wikipedia.
2. Calling Mercer's book "seminal" or referencing her "exclusive" column is WP:PUFFERY. It adds very little to the article, and it is not neutral.
3. To the extent Mercer is notable at all, she appears to be notable primarily because she is closely tied to white nationalism. It's not "slanderous" to cite articles that criticize her.

Most of this needs to go. Nblund ^talk 14:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Isaidnoway as well, just in case this slips of the ol watchlist. Nblund ^talk 17:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, fine ... words like "seminal," can be removed. Great. But I don't see why when you're documenting a columnists views to use sources from said person's own column? How are those not credible? It's not like those websites - WND, Townhall, Mises.org, are ragtag overnight operations. Basically, why is there a a great need for secondary sources on a view point? Kc2290 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is that relying exclusively on WP:PRIMARY sources makes the article non-neutral. Per WP:DUE: We publish viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources - if lots of reliable sources have discussed a person or a viewpoint, we give it lots of attention, if they don't appear in lot of reliable sources, we give them less attention. Worldnetdaily, Townhall.com, and Mises.org might be acceptable in some circumstances, but they are WP:PRIMARY sources that don't necessarily indicate the appropriate weight that should be given to a viewpoint. You might personally consider Mercer's views on neoconservativism very notable and interesting, but that's not how we make the assessment here. Nblund ^talk 19:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

First off, I have "addressed the problems," in the bio section are there not sources from the sacred 3rd party?

Secondly, I paint Mercer in a "positive light" or a "negative light," all I have done is document her views on certain issues.

User Nblud or whatever the hell his name is is a partisan troll that target articles on Right Wingers. Kc2290 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)kc2290

[[6]] I am reporting misspellings and poor linkage to other pages. In the Tampa Bay Buccaneers section, there are two misspellings of the team nickname Buccaneers preventing proper linkage to the team WIKI page. Also, in that graph is a reference to the Pirate Bowl, which apparently is a nickname for Super Bowl XXXVII (Superbowl 37) which featured that team playing the Oakland Raiders. This could also be linked to the SuperBowl page.

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.129.46 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sharon Peacock The page has had several acts of vandalism, including the addition of details that are untrue and potentially defamatory (for example, working on alien life, working on biothreat agents with MI6). This has been done by an anonymous user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzylite (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lizzylite: the edits by the IP users have been removed, and I have protected the page temporarily to prevent more abuse from unregistered editors. This regrettably means that you also will not be able to edit the page until you accumulate 10 edits, but in the meantime if you see something else in the article that has been vandalized please leave a note on the article's talk page. If the disruptive edits continue, please make a report at WP:RFPP. Thanks for your note. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Jair Bolsonaro appears to violate guidelines in many ways and requires more patrol. A few editors are acting like they WP:OWN the article. Please consider participating at the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.229.172.183 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

People keep changing the following sports perssons page with factually incorrect information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klemmer David has signed a contract with the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs until 2020. This is currently under review, and he MAY be leaving for the Newcastle Knights, however this is all media heresay. As such anyone changing the page to state from 2019 onwards he is signed to Newcastle Knights, is committing vandalism on the page. I would suggest the page be locked for edits until verifiable information states that he has signed elsewhere.

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.163.1 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos appears to violate BLP guidelines in many ways, and requires more patrol.

• Unsourced or poorly sourced sections. In this [7] edit I removed an entirely unsourced section.
• Excessive LEDE. In this edit [8] I removed a large portion of the LEDE to the talk page. Editors appear to be jamming whatever POV they have (negative or positive) into the LEDE of this article creating WP:WEIGHT problems.

I would like to also remind you that: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." so do not delete content from the lede just because they are covered in the body of the article. -Object404 (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, from WP:LEDE, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." - the lede is just a hair over 4 paragraphs (2 sentences), so it is not too long. -Object404 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Excessive negativity and detail. See this Imelda_Marcos#Court_cases. WP is not a directory.

For crying out loud, Imelda, together with her husband Ferdinand Marcos used to be listed for many years in the Guinness World Records for largest theft in the world until the category was retired.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} This is not excessive negativity, this is simple listing of facts and is NPOV. It's important that these details be listed as there are ongoing efforts to whitewash the Marcoses' horrific legacy a la holocaust denial/historical negationism.^[7] -Object404 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Just thought I would open this up for comments and encourage more patrol of this page that seems to be controversial and the subject of POV edits. Note I am an infrequent editor of this article, in fact, I think until today I have never edited this article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Only as a note because I had nominated her sentencing at ITNC, that in the 2 years from when the article was made a GA and nominated for FAC, and today, a lot of crap has been added to it, and a TNT-aspect back to the last known good version might be reasonable. --Masem (t) 19:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think we're jumping to conclusions here. While I agree that the article can still use some work, may I ask what you think a "balanced" view of the article is, given her own political legacy and what she has done both during her husband's presidency and after it? I'm disinclined to believe that the article is excessively "negative" if much of what has been written about her, and much of her political legacy at that, has been negative. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears there is POV pushing on this article, and this article must comply with WP:BLP. I'll ping a couple of more uninvolved editors @MER-C: and @Jytdog: in case they wish to comment. I think this article might be a candidate for sanctions. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing on whose part, though? Pointing to WP:BLP doesn't answer the question, especially when it's pretty difficult to sound "disinterested" in a topic that has everyone's emotions all riled up.

I get that uninvolved non-Filipino editors want to help the article be more gentle in neutrally approaching the topic, but I'm concerned that there may be unintended consequences to pushing for that if you have a documented history of people "sanitizing" anything about the Marcoses, especially here on Wikipedia. I don't think we can divorce ourselves from that reality. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issue in the article. Maybe you should post your concern in NPOV noticeboard instead. STSC (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not really sure if there is a clear NPOV issue, as I am not a regular editor of this article (except for the past day or so). An example of this is citation [9] is used 27 times. My view was that the article seemed to suffer from sensationalism and read like a gossip journal (seemingly focusing on every small detail of the subject's life, in many cases negative, but in some cases excessive focus on positive minutia as well). The passion the POV editors even shows on this noticeboard comments above. That is why I posted it here for BLP comments first to see what others thought, maybe I am just making a mountain out of a molehill as well? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This noticeboard is mainly for reporting defamatory or libelous material. STSC (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I'd really like to thank everyone here who has contributed to the article since the GA Reasessment initiated by user:howcheng at the beginning of the month. I know that not everybody will agree with me, but I strongly feel that the current version of the article is the most WP:NPOV compliant it has been since I can recall. (It had been strange to me for over a year how unbalanced it was, considering it was a GA.) When I say "everyone who has contributed", I include those editors who have made an effort to keep the article from being too negative, because the literature on this topic is highly polarized and keeping this page NPOV will probably have to be a very collaborative process.

As for the article having NPOV issues, well, indeed it does. But I believe many of them were already in the article while it was still a GA, and many of them ultimately spring from WP:RS and WP Primary issues.

Before the latest slew of edits, the article highly reliant on Polotan 1969 and Pedrosa 1969. That makes a bit of sense: Polotan's 1969 book remains the only official biography of Imelda Marcos; And Pedrosa's book, the first unofficial biography. But both are virtually primary sources, with inherent biases. (Less of an issue for books published after 86, such as Ellison and the later Pedrosa book)

I believe the "excessive focus on minutia" boils down to overdependence on these sources; it was a common writing style in the Philippines in the 60s and 70s. It also explains the strange section putting emphasis on Imelda's social life during the first two terms.

More to the point, both books were written in 1969. Before Marcos' 2nd Term, before Martial Law, before the economic crash of 83, before the revolution, and so on. History has put many of the things covered in these books into context, which is still a bit lacking here, even though folks have recently done great work expanding the article. Note that the article didn't have much in the way of post-1970 sections until the GA review.

Polotan's book in particular was slanted very positive. After all, it was initiated with Imelda's knowledge and support, and was published while Ferdinand Marcos was running for his second term. IMHO virtually anything written to expand an article heavily based on that is going to sound like POV Pushing.

I'm not actually sure what course of action I want to suggest to the community. But I thought I'd share a backgrounder. I hope it helps.-Alternativity (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Relating to all this background, WP:NG applies here. Regarding sourcing, I do see that one author's source (Pedrosa) is cited 50 times+, with one Pedrosa source in excess of 27 times. @STSC: do you feel this is suitable? I have been scolded by David Gerard (talk · contribs) in the past on using a particular source less than 10 times. This BLP is the subject of widespread coverage over a half century. Therefore, why do we need to add defamatory content, such as calling this lady the worst of all the kleptocrats (which she well may be), that is anchored in many cases by one or two authors? There are whole sections that are anchored by one source in some cases, which should clearly be a WP:NG or possible WP:NPOV violation (or both). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concern but every article is work-in-progress; more secondary sources would be introduced over time. STSC (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with one of the comments made by Alternativity that one of the problems of the article involves the "excessive focus on minutia" and I do not find any excessive NPOV issues as well. Regarding the Pedrosa sources, it would be helpful for the critic to provide sources that dispute its accounts. Through the years, her claims must have been debunked in the Philippines if it contained erroneous information particularly by the individuals mentioned. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

First, Darwin Naz, thank you for agreeing. Although I'd like to acknowledge that the exact phrase you attributed to me first came from Jtbobwaysf. I just want to make sure to give due credit there. Second, I'd like to second STSC's assertion that every article is work-in-progress. This article is very much in need of cleanup, moving away from the excessive "tidbits of dross" described by WP:NG. But not at the risk of introducing even further NPOV issues by aiming towards the sort of neutrality that actually constitutes false balance. - Alternativity (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

When I first landed on this article last week, the article had a number of tags seeking expansion of "tidbits of dross" sections, a massive lede with editors trying to jam this dribble into the lede, an entire section lacking a single source, and entire sections anchored by sometimes a single primary source. I think we could do an RfC to treat Poloton and Pedrosa as WP:PRIMARY on this article and thus limit their usage to some reasonable amount (say maybe or 5-10 times in total each on the article?). The subject of this article is obviously controversial (probably rightly so). Yet per WP:BLP we have a duty as editors to keep the article neutral rather than letting it skew off to the views of a couple of primary sources. We also have a duty to uphold WP:NG principles as well. My criticism of this article was that this is likely a high traffic BLP, we as editors are doing a poor job of policing it, and it might be worthwhile to at least get more people to patrol it (and maybe consider some type of action (admin, RfC, or otherwise) to create some rules to assist management of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

For:

Numerous sources have labeled Lauren Southern as "far right" due to her political opinions. To dispute this is to WP:CRYBLP.@Nblund:

Against:

She labels herself as simply "right" or "right-libertarian".

A bombardment of sourcing which label her as "far right" is not grounds for following suit.

This may be a case of circular sources (reporters simply following Wikipedia's label).

None of the sources cited thus far actually dive into the reason why she should be labeled "far right". Context matter. See WP:NEWSORG.

The term "far right" is a primary source in all articles cited. It is the journalists words/opinion, not the words or opinions of experts.

This is a contentious and derogatory term. The Wikipedia page far right shows a strong association with Nazi's and fascists.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is an exceptional claim. None of the sources presented are exceptional.

There seems to be inconsistency among the sources (some labeling her as "right" some as "far right").

There are others with similar opinions (such as Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro) who have similar opinions, who have been called far right by some, and are not labeled as far right.

This term is potentially libelous and should be removed as per BLP guidelines

[10]

Thank you Dig _deeper ^talk 18:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing "libelous" about describing someone as "far right" if a consensus of reliable sources do so. BLP policy does not prohibit us from calling a spade a spade; it merely requires that we use high-quality sources and write articles sensitively and with regard to the people we are covering. Southern is a voluntary public figure who makes her living by espousing controversial and extremist positions. I see no reason to change the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be very well sourced. How she labels herself can certainly be included. But, self-identification is quite often incorrect. I see no BLP problem here. O3000 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dig deeper: Calling a far-right activist "far-right" per reliable sources is certainly not a BLP violation. When you call it "libellous", or as you say in an edit summary here, that it "risks libel", is that a threat of taking legal action? Bishonen | talk 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

The statement could certainly be seen as intended to have a chilling effect. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your prompt replies.

It seems to me that WP:Call a spade a spade is an essay about conversing clearly with other Wikipedians NOT about placing labels on living people in Wikipedia articles.

There is not a consensus of sources. As I said above, there is inconsistency.

There is clearly no legal threat here. The word libel appears in WP:BLPREMOVE. I could be wrong but a "chilling effect" in my mind would suggest I wanted to shut down discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I reached out to the other editor to have a discussion on the article's talk page. To label concerns as having a chilling effect may create its own chilling effect with respect to identifying risks to Wikipedia.

Would the editors kindly address the points listed above?

Thank you for your participation. I am not dug into to my position, and am open to change my mind. I welcome all opinions and points of view.Dig _deeper ^talk 20:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no law against being right-wing. Even in a case where there are laws (e.g. a mass shooting), different sources use different language. We just go with the preponderance of good sources. Rather a lot of them in this case. O3000 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not libel as it's not negative/controversial. BLPREMOVE doesn't apply as this does not violate any policy. This might be undue or POV, but that's not something this noticeboard deals with, and does not imply that this is a BLP violation. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 20:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:

It seems to me these sources are all the opinions of journalists, not secondary sources. None of the sources actually explain why she should be called "far right", there's just an assumption. I would feel more comfortable if we could find a source where a political scientist with some expertise in this subject actually labels her as such. In my mind these are primary sources.

BLP seems to be all about risk management. I've pointed out potential problems before. Not sure why this time there is a sanction on me by Bishonen. I do not feel I "severely or persistently disrupted discussion". Quite the contrary, I invited and encouraged discussion and expanded the discussion to this forum to see if maybe I was on the wrong track. I feel I carefully followed the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. First time that's happened in my 11 + years as an editor.Dig _deeper ^talk 21:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Correction, not a "sanction", a "warning of a sanction".Dig _deeper ^talk 21:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• What isn't the opinion of journalists is that Southern was refused entry to the UK after previously turning up in Luton (a town with one of the highest Muslim populations in the UK) and standing outside a fast-food restaurant in the town centre handing out flyers saying ... well, you can read what she did. Far-right activist denied entry to UK after distributing racist material in Luton Far-right activist gets lifetime ban from coming to UK. Your average "right-winger" doesn't pull stunts like that. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thank you for adding to the discussion. I could be wrong, but I would consider these interpretations as original research or synthesis. Provoking Muslims in a manner like Charlie Hebdo (a leftist) might earn the title "Islamophobe" rather than "far right", but my interpretations here are also original research/synthesis. I would feel more comfortable if we could find a source where an expert, such as a political scientist with some expertise in this subject actually labels her as such. In my mind these citations are all primary sources with respect to the label of "far right". Dig _deeper ^talk 01:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m not certain why you feel that a political scientist (that you haven’t found) is more accurate than the preponderance of a rather large number of journalists at respected sources. What I will say is that you haven’t gained consensus for your views at the article TP and you aren’t going to get it here by claiming that articles written by journalists at reliable sources, that are not editorials or op-eds are, somehow, primary sources. One can claim that everything is an "opinion", including the theory of gravity (which is less than perfect). But, don’t jump off a building and hope you’ll fall up. A useful encyclopedia cannot be created by nihilists. O3000 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The burden of finding a source "...rests with the editor who adds or restores material." I nevertheless did look around and could not find any; maybe others would have better luck. In the meantime, I feel the label should be removed. The problem with the journalists opinion used in BLP is not that the opinion is necessarily wrong, it is not using a primary source (the journalist isn't quoting someone else). This is fine elsewhere in Wikipedia. In BLP, I was under the impression this was inappropriate. Taking this to extreme, questioning all opinions everywhere including gravity, is not at all what I implied and might be considered by some to be a strawman argument. Dig _deeper ^talk 02:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to pursue the issue I've raised @Dig deeper! I would agree with the fact that journalists are not secondary sources. In addition, journalists are usually politically motivated, as a lot of the sources that were cited are known to be (the Guardian, NY times are not Trump supporters...) so their objectivity on political taxonomy can be put into question. The far right label is a way to discredit your adversaries. As @Dig deeper said the wikipedia article for the far right mentions nazism, not a very popular ideology. Several clear commentaries by well-cited political scientists is also to my mind what is needed to say something that is derogatory for a living person. With a superficial description of the events and a superficial knowledge of politics, the stunts distributing provocative flyers about islam that were mentioned by @Black Kite could be interpreted both as right-libertarian (by distributing these flyers she is affirming her freedom to do so) or as far right (she wants to make muslims feel so bad that they live the country). Having studied the case extensively, it is clear to me that the stunt is libertarian in essence. She was also a candidate for the libertarian party, and never for the far right. The difference between a right-libertarian action and a far-right action could have easily have been missed by journalists given that libertarianism is a lot less known than far-right politics. I think that only well-cited political scientists have the expertise and authority necessary to tell between the two conclusively. Ecliptica (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ecliptica: that's not the way we work. Although political scientists write on such subjects and at some future date one might mention Southern as right wing, they don't normally take part in contemporary discussions, ie the media etc. We don't wait for such books or journal articles to discuss someone's political leanings. We really don't care about your analysis, that's original research, a policy your 31 edits so far may not be enough experience for you to know about. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There is something of a valid point in Ecliptica's statements; it's why it's a policy on the biography of living persons that we're more cautious of how we approach those that are still living. Once they are long dead, we're still careful but don't tread as lightly. To that reason, we should be careful of injecting media opinion of a person's viewpoint that has only been developed over a few weeks or so (sensationalist reporting). Those factors don't apply to Southern here, she's been in the news for a few years now. --Masem (t) 16:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. It's not negative or controversial, and it's backed up by a consensus of reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is standard to use news articles as sources for person's ideologies unless and until better sources are available. If she does not like how she is reported in news media, then she should file a complaint with them. TFD (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's impossible to not mention "far right" or "alt right" on Southern's page, but I do think the article's written in a manner to go out of its way to "accuse" her of being far right as that's the first descriptor given which is not appropriate per NPOV (for impartial tone) The way the lede is structured, this can be mentioned in the second sentence (alongside "alt-right"). But there's sufficient sourcing otherwise to make it clear that we can say she's identified as far right; it cannot be buried away. --Masem (t) 06:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• No it isn't. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• No Her views are the only thing that make her notable, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. We go by reliable sources. If reliable sources call her far-right, we call her far-right. If she calls herself conservative, right-wing, radical, a free speech activist, a toaster, a porcupine, or a sentient pancake, and reliable sources call her far-right, we call her far-right. The reliable sources do the analysis, not us. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Mostly No Some of the sources for far-right and alt-right are not necessarily the best, but it is certainly supported. On a related note, people saying it is not a controversial or negative WP:LABEL should really read our far-right and alt-right articles. The lead really could use a lot of cleanup though and perhaps better sources than some of the ones used.PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Dig deeper: Just to be clear: I don't think that merely disputing the label on the talk page would constitute "crying BLP". I said you were "crying BLP" because you were clearly mistaken in saying that these sources were "editorials" and yet you were still insisting that your edit should stand because of WP:BLP.I don't think that merely disputing the label on the talk page would constitute "crying BLP". Nblund ^talk 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback on this. I realize this is somewhat political, I appreciate the civil discussion. I think Ecliptica articulated certain points on terminology better than I. It seems that there is a consensus here that this is not a BLP issue (due to the multiple sources) and thus low risk of liability to Wikipedia. With this, there seems to be less urgency to edit than what is described in BLP. Based on comments from Masem and wumbolo, perhaps a discussion on the talk page regarding NPOV or UNDUE or LEAD might be more appropriate than a BLP discussion here. I will continue the discussion there later this week. I would invite those who wish to continue the discussion to join us there and share more of your thoughts. Cheers.Dig _deeper ^talk 01:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, but please do not reopen this discussion, whose outcome is clear. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find a lot of the same people on those other noticeboards. The answer is No it's fine to call her far-right. That is not libel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• No per above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As I had previously reverted this edit by an IP as a BLP violation, and they have now reverted my revert, I am requesting some eyes on this article regarding whether there are any BLP violations in it currently. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I Reverted due to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Might be scope for inclusion if there are secondary sources (as opposed to primary transcripts).Icewhiz (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dr. John's year of birth is one year later than commonly agreed on, and one day earlier. His hometown newspaper found that he had added a year to his age to be able to tour as an underage prodigy. "New Orleans music legend Dr. John is turning 78! Or is he ..." https://www.nola.com/music/2018/11/new-orleans-music-legend-dr-john-is-turning-78-or-is-he.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncrow1 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is continuously editing by someone with inappropriate informations. So Admins please be aware of this. The editor is stating that Trupti Desai is a hardcore supporter of Communist Beliefs. Actually from her facebook post and other news we can find that she is not. So please delete this page of protect anyone from editing this. The article link is given below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trupti_Desai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfanebrahimsait (talk • contribs) 08:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Mitchell Goldhar Hi, I want to proactively declare that I am a COI WP:PAID. I work for Mitchell Goldhar's company, SmartCentres. I understand that an employee of the company made edits to Mitchell Goldhar's BLP article before declaring a COI. We recognize this was wrong. Can you please help me understand the process to have the maintenance template / issue flags removed from the article. I believe the employee's edits have all been reversed. Thank you in advance for your help. Mandymail (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This certain data/content which was available for public viewership on your web portal Wikipedia.org/Wikimedia is based on no factual or empirical evidence and is disparaging to the reputation & goodwill of Acharya Balkrishna, that he has enjoyed ever since its inception. The content so uploaded on your web portal is per say defamatory, based on ill-founded logic and completely disparaging in nature. It is humbly requested to please remove this defamatory and disparaging content from your portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legal.swr (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Legal.swr: The Controversy section of the article appears to be sufficiently sourced and to reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I was NPPing Benjamin Conner (engineer), the sole claim for notability of which appears to be an entry in the "Dictionary of Scottish Architects". Seems a tad thin to me, but possibly it is accepted practice, as with the "Dictionary of National Biography". I couldn't tell from similar articles; samples I pulled all had some additional sources. I suspect there's some (unwritten?) guideline somewhere about the weight of that source. Can someone enlighten me? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• From that Dictionary's front page: "The Dictionary of Scottish Architects (DSA) is a database providing biographical information and job lists for all architects known to have worked in Scotland during the period 1660-1980, whether as principals, assistants or apprentices" - as such, it is a complete database, it does not confer notability. While there are certain to be notable Scottish architects, merely being a Scottish architect does not confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful. As I'm not finding anything else suitable about him, I guess I'll have to send this to AfD (shame, I prefer Scottish engineers to "internet entrepreneurs and motivational speakers" |p )--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

He was an engineer primarily and inducted into the Institution of Civil Engineers which is hard to get into. Mainly worked on railway infrastructure. Worrying about his building design career is off the main point. Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Some opinions are needed at Talk:Hailey Baldwin#Article move. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns WP:COMMONAME, its WP:NAMECHANGES subsection, and there being no confirmation that Baldwin has legally changed her name to Hailey Bieber...unless one wants to go by her updating her Instagram name to Hailey Bieber. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It also appears that the two are not even yet married, and yet Wikipedia is reporting that both are married in their infoboxes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY says: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it."

What should we do when BLP subjects complain about even the year being included? I've had several instances of female subjects asking that their year of birth be removed, even when it's reliably sourced. I have some sympathy for this. Because of age and gender discrimination, these issues hit women much harder, so I'm inclined to remove the information, so long as it isn't widely available and there's nothing contentious about it. But removing it opens up other issues. If someone completed a BA in 1980, there's a good chance they were born around 1959. If we're asked to remove the year of graduation, should we do that too?

How far do other editors go to accommodate these requests? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging some editors who've discussed this before and are still active: @Laveol, ReaderofthePack, Ukexpat, Bender235, Black Kite, NeilN, HiLo48, Cyclopia, and GoldenRing: SarahSV ^(talk) 20:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This is privacy theater. As you mentioned, the year of birth can easily be inferred from other dates, such as year of high school or college graduation. Apart from that, my position on the matter remains unchanged: the only policy that matters here is WP:RS. If there is a publicly accessible source for someone's date of birth, whether it is an entry in some other encyclopedia, or in an authority control file, or in one's own (publicly available) CV, the information is out there (meaning anyone who really wanted to do harm could find just as we do), and stripping it from Wikipedia is a farce. --bender235 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, if the person requested it thru a ticket or whatever? Jeez yeah remove it, or at least be very inclined to. We're an encyclopedia. We're not going to have a full-length biography. What's important about any bio article is "who is she"? We want to show what she did. What books she wrote, what movies she was in, who she killed, what planes she piloted, what state she represented in Congress; and important stuff that she experienced. Stuff like that. Who cares the exact year she was born?

Does the person's birthdate have anything -- anything -- to do with why she's notable? No, it doesn't. It's just not important in >99% of cases (and if for some reason it is, that's different). Sure we generally include it, as a kind of automatic habit. Why not? Vital statistics are part of "filling out the corners", it's easy and its not subject to discussion, and it's the sort of thing that an encyclopedia is "expected" to do. So what? We are not here to meet expectations like that. Not if there's a good reason not to. And a ticket is a very good reason.

Sure, we have include the general milieu that person operated in. If she's a jazz musician, it matters whether she was active in the 1940s or the 1980s. You don't need exact birth years for that. If other information that is important and does need to be provided provides clues that a reader who is so inclined can puzzle out to get a rough birth year, fine; that's a lot different than putting it down straight in black and white. Herostratus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Herostratus, I'm inclined to agree with you. But I start to feel uneasy about removing when someone completed their degrees. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes User:SlimVirgin it's a fair point to ask where do we draw the line, do we not include graduation year if so requested and so on. It depends on the circumstances I guess. If she was freshman roommates with Bridget Fonda and, because of that relationship, went on to work with her on many films, that's relevant data I think. Whether the person is marginally notable or very notable matters I think. What the said in their ticket might matter. My personal inclination would be "Whoa. Redacting your birth year is the most we can reasonably do. It makes the task of determining your birth year possible, but requires a deliberate effort on the part of the reader. That is a reasonable limit in our view." (On the other hand, why do we need to tell the reader the exact year the subject graduated?)

On living people, rarely use anything other than the year. If I have a reliable source for a date I input it but comment it out <!-- date/source --> until they have died. But, if someone requests that the information be omitted, even the year should not be included. Dates which place people in their historical context are generally helpful, but safety and privacy are bigger concerns. SusunW (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, thanks for the reply. How would you handle the situation of removing the year someone graduated or similar? I've dealt with a couple of cases where women wanted their year of birth to be removed and also the year in which they graduated, in one case, and the year they started their first job, in another. Would you remove that information too? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV Probably, for me it is an issue of privacy and we do not want to negatively impact their career. You can always put in a decade, placing in historical context without pinning down an actual date. SusunW (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Susan, thanks, I agree. I like Zaereth's point below: "What I would ask myself is: Is it not just reliably sourced, but found in multiple sources enough that we can infer that the subject either does not object or that such objections would be pointless, as the info is already widespread." That approach means we don't have to focus on whether the subject is borderline notable. The important question is whether the disputed information is found in multiple sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

At some point it becomes impossible to have an informative article with no timescale or historical context, at what point do we say the article is worthless and just delete it because the lack of dates is too confusing? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, the requests I'm thinking of would include later dates, but would omit the year of birth and the earliest dates that would pin down the year of birth (e.g. the graduation year). This is a very real problem for female BLP subjects. I've had several requests to this effect over the years, often from women in the entertainment business, but also from women who feel they'll have difficulty with personal relationships because men will regard them as too old. It's hard to say no when it's a borderline notable person and the dates are sourced but not widely available. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I have nothing against removing unnecessary dates, I am thinking sometimes things like collage graduations are relevant to the article, highschool, not so much. I do support differing to privacy, I just wasn't sure at first if you were talking about removing all dates throughout their career to create an article that never said what year someone did important research, ect.

P.S just curious how you think personal relationships will be affected by age, do people really hide their age from their boyfriend? (maybe they do, just never heard of it, and not sure why you would want to go out with someone so shallow in the first place). Tornado chaser (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Back to reality. If secondary reliable sources say that the BLP subject was born in year X, then we include that in our article. Even if they are a minor. Even if they send us a confirmed request that they don't want the world to know how old they are. MPS1992 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I would use the same criteria as with any other contentious or private info. What I would ask myself is: Is it not just reliably sourced, but found in multiple sources enough that we can infer that the subject either does not object or that such objections would be pointless, as the info is already widespread. I agree that birthdates are really just trivia; one of those things people always want to know... for some odd reason... but rarely leads to a better understanding of the subject. Same for graduation dates or the like, but I feel less strongly about those as you can only assume other dates rom it, but I wouldn't be going through high-school yearbooks to dig them up. They should be in secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to use whatever criteria you like. I would include the year of birth of an independently notable person based on the first reliable secondary source that lists it. MPS1992 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the original question was asking about the policy regarding "borderline notable" people (or so I thought), which is a little different for those who are "independently notable". Zaereth (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of the original question. But my concern is that we've now moved onto more general principles, like if someone requests that the information be omitted, even the year should not be included. Any such general principle needs, at the least, a very wide RFC to establish. MPS1992 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have the borderline notable in mind. But if we take the approach that the disputed information should be kept if available in multiple sources, we can focus on that point, rather than in trying to determine whether someone is borderline notable. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Please do something with the unnecessary exact birth date and full legal name of a non-notable current minor in the Moon Unit article, in the meantime. It's apparently either unsourced, or sourced to the wonderful WP:DAILYMAIL. MPS1992 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Herostratus, we do not give subjects the final editorial right for their biography, and for good reason. People cannot pick and choose which part of their vita, that is so widely publicly available that it appeared in reliable sources, is being repeated in a Wikipedia article. Heck, we fought legal suits over the right to call murderers murderers, and now we budge because someone feels embarrassed about their age? What's next? --bender235 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You are playing a straw man game there. I am of mature years. I am not embarrassed by my age, but I have certainly been discriminated against on the basis of it. It was one of several reasons for a career change 15 years ago. If you have ever felt differently about someone because of their "old" age, you should realise the problem that exists here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes... OK, BLP says that on contested material the burden is on the person wanting to include it (granted, this is a simplification). Yes we don't give them control over their biography, but neither do we entirely ignore their interests.

So if a person has actually requested their exact birth year be not featured, then the burden is on the person wanting to do it to make the case "But in this case we must, because otherwise the article is degraded to point where it does not sufficiently fulfill our encyclopedic mission". This would be unusual for an exact birth year, but it's possible. If the person was regularly called "Miss Century" because she was born in 2001 or something, then OK.

We don't need an RFC for this, we already have a rule, in the Biography of Living Persons (BLP) page, which the burden would be on the person wanting to change the material to get consensus for that. BLP says:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

OK. I grant that it says do this so that it is "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on... reliable sources" and "complies with Wikipedia's content policies" which a birth year would do for a dead guy. So... disputable. However, let's remember the spirit of that rule, which is more or less "We are the world's eighth largest website and the subject is some random mook. We need to be aware of the power differential here and give the poor saps a break." Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48. I'm sorry that you experienced discrimination. But that doesn't change my point: if somebody wants to discrimate or otherwise do you harm using your DOB, he will find that information in a public source the same way a Wikipedia editor would find it. Hiding it from Wikipedia does not make the information inaccessible. Wikipedia is not in charge of someone's privacy. If you want your DOB out of the public eyes, eliminate it at the original source that serves as the reference to Wikipedia. But then again, it is hard to credibly reason why it's okay to have ones birthdate in The Who's Who but not in Wikipedia as well.

Once we go down this route of giving subjects to option to pick and choose what they want to see in their Wikipedia biography, we're in a mess. What if Trump wants all mentions of his bankrupties removed? Why not allow him the same as Joe Schmoe who does not want to see his DOB in Wikipedia? And don't give me the nonsense of 'borderline notability;' if you're notable enough to have your DOB published in the Who's Who or something similar, you're not an average nobody. --bender235 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how far off track can you go? My age is something unavoidable, and it's something that has led people to harm me. Trump's bankruptcies are hardly in the same ballpark. This discussion is ONLY about birth dates. Please drop the straw man arguments. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not a straw man. And don't avoid the question: how does removing your DOB from Wikipedia protect you from discrimination or other harm if your DOB is still accessible in some other publication? It adds zero layers of privacy, it is pure privacy theater. --bender235 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If it a year that is given by our best RSes, like NYtimes, BBC, etc., there is no point in removing it. But if there is a chance that it is a year that weaker RSes report (more local newspapers, TMZ, etc.), that might have come from a single bad point of data (which could include citogenesis from WP), then it is reasonable to consider removing it as a questionable data source on request of the person themselves. These birth years and dates often come from one source that might be bad, and we should remove if there's question. --Masem (t) 20:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem Pretty much my point in this debate. If there is a source for the subject's DOB that meets WP:RS, it should be included in the subject's Wikipedia page. If the source is shaky, we err on the side of removing the DOB, as we do with other information according to WP:BLP. --bender235 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"if somebody wants to.. do you harm using your [information], he will find that information in a public source the same way a Wikipedia editor would find it" is not actually not how we roll here. This attitude is is direct contravention of the spirit of a core rule (WP:BLP) and what's more isn't even nice. Based on this, I'd say that you've lost the argument game-set-match and we can move on. Interesting discussion tho! Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Herostratus, I hate to rain in your faux victory parade, but please point me to the paragraph in WP:BLP that says we have to delete facts based on the subject's whim. As a matter of fact, WP:BLP says the complete opposite; that is, we reserve the right to include any factual statements, including embarrassing or unflattering ones, as long as they are backed by a reliable source.

Anyhow, before you again manage to dodge the original question (i.e., what layer of privacy is added by removing information that is publicly available elsewhere?), let me nail it down to a number of examples:

• a politician's DOB is listed on Congress.gov; do we delete it if the politician demands so under the guise of privacy? What is gained if we do?
• a baseball players DOB is listed on MLB.com; do we delete it if the player demands so under the guise of privacy? What is gained if we do?
• an actor's DOB is listed in IMDb; do we delete it if the actor demands so under the guise of privacy? What is gained if we do?
• a researcher's DOB is listed in some special-interest encyclopedia; do we delete it if the researcher demands so under the guise of privacy? What is gained if we do?

You tell me where to draw the line, when to delete and when not. And then you can proceed with your victory dance. --bender235 (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input. What I take away from this is that it depends on the sources. If the year of birth (or year of graduation or whatever is causing the problem) is in multiple sources, we leave it in. If it's in a prominent RS (e.g. New York Times or BBC) we leave it in. If it's in an obscure or weaker source, and not widely known, it's reasonable to remove it on request. Is that a fair summary of the consensus? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly how I feel, but we seem to have some very divergent views. Some seem very hard core on the "tell all, no matter the impact" approach. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable summary, just as an aside and I have no evidence for this that when the subject says remove the date of birth it is really the year (and age) they are trying to hide mainly for profession reasons. Actors and presenters have in the past used the wrong year in official biogs and the like, they dont as far as I have seen change the actual day/month they were born. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I monitor an error tracking category which includes problems in ((birth date and age)). That shows several broken edits per week where the month/day were removed (and others with inexplicable changes). If I can see a sort-of reliable source I restore the birth date, but if I can't or if the source is dubious I convert the template to ((birth year and age)) to remove the error but only show the birth year. Sometimes I remove the birth date altogether as unsourced. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example, although this removes the birth year. Check the recent history at Dave Chameides and feel free to decide what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't quite understand the distinction between "prominent RS" and (apparently) "obscure RS". We already have WP:RS to guide the distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Why should the source being reliable not be enough of a hurdle to clear? What scenario do you have in mind? DOB published in New York Times is "prominent," but published in the Hartford Courant is not? --bender235 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

To me, there are sources that deal well with "current" news, but do not exceed well doing past research; they are good RSes for events that often can also be corroborated with other sources (and when it is events that are quite visible, do not go against what is well known fact) But birthyears require a bit of research, because technically the only way one can get the precise year is either from birth certs or by what the person themselves have said, or otherwise a high quality RS that is known to have the research chops to figure that out appropriately (these sources are also generally the ones with similar concerns on privacy of individuals too). So now if we have a BLP requesting removal, we're pitting a BLPPRIVACY question over the quality of sources that provide that information, and BLP would urge us to go in favor of privacy if there's any doubt to the accuracy/preciseness of the sources. --Masem (t) 21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bender235:, I would judge it by how hard it was for me to track down a reliable source for the birth year. If I had to go the extra mile to find it (e.g. go to a library), and if the subject then complained, I'd remove it, so long as there was nothing contentious about it. It would be a judgment call every time. Pinging Ipigott and Charles01, who commented about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that's a fuzzy criterion. What's "hard work" for you might not be for me, or someone else. Plus, in 99% of the cases we're talking about internet sources anyway (which includes sources accessible through the internet, such as books on Google Books etc.). In my opinion, WP:RS is a high enough bar to clear. Also, rather than talking in the abstract, I would like to discuss this on explicit examples; see my points above, which Herostratus has yet to reply to. --bender235 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

RS is not a black and white bar. A source that is reliable for some info may be completely unreliable for others. In considering the question of whether or not we should consider the subject's feelings when deciding whether or not to include the date, I think this depends a lot on just how notable the subject is. A person's expectation of privacy is inversely proportional to how famous they are. Someone like Wesley Snipes or Harrison Ford cannot expect nearly the privacy as say ... F. J. Duarte. Many people will want to know the former, but few will care about the latter. They're all notable enough to have an article, but clearly not on the same level. I think it's important to consider that the subjects we write about are real people, but also balance that with the expectations of our readers, who are also real people. I don't think we should include for inclusions sake, or just because it makes us feel better about ourselves just to show we can, but do so if it helps the reader better understand the subject. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @Bender235: You asked some specific questions above, so here is my view. First, we remove date of birth if asked. See WP:BLPPRIVACY: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it."

As for removing the year (addressing the examples you gave), I wouldn't remove it from the political bio if it was listed on Congress.gov. I can't answer the baseball one, because I don't know how reliable mlb.com is. An actor's year of birth sourced to IMDb: I would remove because that's not a good source. A researcher's year of birth listed in a special-interest encyclopedia: I might remove it depending on how widely it had been published. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh jeez yes, there are lot of these. There are a lot of people where we don't know the date. I think there's protocols for dealing with that -- we use "unknown", or "1932 or 1933", or "c." or "fl.", or sometimes we figure one date is sufficiently established that we use it, even tho some sources say otherwise.

However, I thought thought here we were talking about cases where we know the date. For that, I was assuming that we have a simple two-step process:

STEP 1: The subject has entered a ticket requesting that her birth year not be given.

STEP 2: We don't.

Right? That'd be the default I think? AFAIK our ticketing system doesn't say "You can submit tickets, but don't bother, because fuck you" or anything like that. Sure, some exceptions could be made. If there's reason to believe the person is just tugging our chain and you can demonstrate this pattern of behavior, that's different. If there is a compelling reason that we must override the request for some reason and the case for this can gain consensus, that's different. "Well, if the person is fairly famous, and her birth date is just all over the internet, and it's not disputed (that is, there are not two alternative dates out there or whatever), then meh, fuck her" is also fairly reasonable altho I don't agree.

I mean the only issue that I thought was on the table was if we should also redact stuff like graduation dates. My vote is to concede that I guess not, altho 1) maybe the person can make a compelling case for her particular instance, and 2) WHY does the reader need to know when the person graduated high school? "In our bio articles, the reader MUST MUST MUST be told the exact year the person graduated high school, because _________". I don't know what goes in blank. Do you? Herostratus (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that if a person is a public figure, they don't have the right to censor accurate information about their date of birth. I think it is craven to assert or imply that they do. We are an encyclopedia, not a PR firm. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, depending on how you define "public figure". If you go by the dictionary definition, "1. A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny. 2. Law A person who is determined to be sufficiently well-known or famous as to prevail in a lawsuit for libel or slander only when the defendant is shown to have acted with malice.", then I completely agree. I don't think this definition applies to the college professor who wrote a few scientific articles but never imagined herself the subject of a Wikipedia article as a result. This is really not a new question unique to Wikipedia, for example it's one that the Society of Professional Journalists deals with very succinctly in their ethics code (which is a great help in determining an RS from a non-RS). But the notion that a public figure could expect far less privacy is not new either. Back in medieval England the celebrities were the nobles, and if you were king you had people paying to watch you eat, watch you sleep, even watch you have sex. Glad to see we've grown a bit since then ... or have we? Zaereth (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

‘I agree with you, depending on how you define "public figure".’ Zaereth, that's what WP:NBIO is for. Why reinvent the wheel rather than using the result of years of deliberation in the Wikipedia community? I don't understand this tendency in this discussion to push aside guidelines and policies that our community has discussed and established over years, and instead come up with new ones. Rather than using WP:RS, SlimVirgin wants to distinguish between "prominent" and "obscure" reliable sources. And supposedly rather than relying on WP:NBIO, we're now supposed to distinguish between "very notable" and "barely notable" people? Am I the only person who sees the madness in this? There is a good reason why laws are not being tailored for special cases, and similarly we should not try to bend our policies or establish new ones just to cater to a few OTRS tickets.

My position remains unchanged: if a person is notable enough by WP:NBIO to have a Wikipedia article, all encyclopedic information available should be included (which includes birth date, birth place, and so on; a Wikipedia bio is not just a business card), as long as each of these have a source that meets WP:RS. If there is no reliable source, we delete. If the person is not notable, we delete the entire article (not just selected information). --bender235 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The way I view it: the only source of birth day and year that is 100% unquestionable for any bio is the birth certificate for that person, followed by statements made by the person themselves. People that are high-level public figures like politicians are likely going to have their records reviewed to that level of detail so its reasonable when that information comes up there, but for others that are in the public eye but not to the level of scrutiny, very few people are going to be looking for birth certs to verify that information. (And needless to say, it would be wholly inappropriate for a WP editor to seek out a birth cert to include this information). So if we have a person that objects to having their birth year given, and its clear that the sources that do give it do are obscure or aren't known for great research, it's probably a good idea to remove it since its very unlikely that those sources went back to the birth cert. to figure out that information. --Masem (t) 15:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You are pushing it ad absurdum. By your logic, our only real source for a person's date of death is the death certificate issued by the doctor, and we could not use newspaper obituaries as sources anymore. --bender235 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in the business of taking the feelings of those we write about into consideration. If policy says don't include the exact date, great. but the year isn't discussed for a reason--it is notable to know, if possible, if someone is fifteen or one-hundred-and-five. For someone to be so notable that a graduation date exists in an RS? It's a slippery slope to start trying to help people hide any hint at their age, and the inclusion of the year cited as policy in the initial statement of this thread, wouldn't lead me to think that disinculding a year for other reasons would follow. I'd also say that if we are including someone on Wikipedia, the differentiation of their level of fame is an odd thing to include in our decisions. We don't decide their level of fame; we just decide their Wikipedia notability. One policy for all BLPs is simpler and more equal. Isingness (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the date of birth (and death where applicable) is, after the name itself, the most universal datum attached to a person in biographical reference sources such as the Oxford DNB or ANB. Of course it doesn't actually matter to the history of music whether Mozart was born before or after the death of Bach, or to the history of literature that Huxley died on the same day as Kennedy; but this is information that is usually provided as a matter of course, and we have come to expect it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should not follow the example of other more august reference works and provide this data when it is publicly available in solid reliable sources – within the limitations, of course, of our privacy policy regarding day and month in cases of doubt. The wishes of the subject (if any) should be taken into account in those doubtful cases, but not otherwise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Summary: Should we remove year of birth on request from borderline-notable BLPs?

This is my understanding of the consensus from above. (To anyone whose views are wrongly attributed here, please feel free to move/remove your name.) Note that removal of the year would depend on it not being widely available in reliable sources. Where it's widely available in RS, there would be no point in removing it.

• Yes: SarahSV, Herostratus, SusunW, Zaereth, Masem, HiLo48, MilborneOne, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång
• No: Bender235, MPS1992, Softlavender, Isingness, and Justlettersandnumbers
• Unclear/other: Tornado chaser and Johnuniq

SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am "yes" although a little nuanced. I said nothing earlier because I was interested in what people thought about the example I gave (see history of Dave Chameides) and did not want to influence opinions. I only remove birth date/year if I think there is doubt (not widely available in reliable sources), and I accept any doubt expressed by a single-edit IP. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, thanks for clarifying. I have in mind a situation where the year of birth is probably correct and is reliably sourced, but the borderline-notable BLP subject asks for its removal without alleging that it's wrong. I've been asked to do this regularly over the years, always by women that I recall. When it's widely available in RS, there's no point in removing it from WP. But what about when it's reliably sourced but not widely available? Should we remove it in those cases? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm more nuanced on this question. If we're asking "if a person notes that their own birth date is not reliably reported, should we remove it?" that's an unequivocal "YES". It doesn't matter who notices: unreliably sourced information of any sort should be removed from Wikipedia. If we're asking "should we remove information from Wikipedia which is scrupulously reported in multiple, highly reliable sources, merely because the subject of the article prefers the information wasn't already out there in scrupulously reliable sources" that's an unequivocal "NO". The point is that the input of the subject of an article is irrelevant: If the information shouldn't be in the article in the first place, it shouldn't be there. If it should be in the article, it should! The opinion of the subject is unneeded; it may alert us to the fact that the birthdate is not reliably sourced; if so it could be anyone who alerted us (the fact that the subject of the article did so isn't all that important to why the birthdate would be removed). If the birthdate is widely reported in scrupulously reliable sources, the subject of the article doesn't have any beef with us; they should take up the matter with the sources that reported their birthdate before we did! --Jayron32 04:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Jayron32, agreed, but what about the scenario described above? The BLP subject is borderline notable. The year of birth is reliably sourced but not widely available. Let's say it's in one print book, but one published by a good publisher. She asks that it be removed but does not assert that it's wrong. What should we do? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why should we remove it, if it was't important to remove it previously from the source in question? Why does THAT source get the privilege of exclusively reporting the information, but Wikipedia is specifically and uniquely excluded from directly quoting the earlier published source? --Jayron32 05:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Jayron32, one scenario would be this. Imagine you work in an industry that is youth- and appearance-oriented. Many years ago, someone created a WP bio about you because you'd had a couple of books published, and one of those books (not online and now quite hard to find) published your year of birth. You're now unemployed, and you're finding it hard even to get an interview because (you suspect) potential employers google your name and see that you're 59. Wikipedia is the only online source for your age, using that old book as a source, so you ask us to remove the year of birth from your bio. Should we do it? SarahSV ^(talk) 06:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Forgot to ping: Jayron32. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• We could go back and forth here playing the hypothetical "what if..." game all day, where you try to invent odd scenarios that don't fit well in existing policy, and I try to invent reasons why we can still follow policy. I'm not sure that's a great road to go down. Hard cases make bad law, which is why IAR exists in the first place. We shouldn't write policy designed for all of Wikipedia which is optimized for the extremely rare cases. If your scenario actually comes up in real life, we'll deal with that without having to write a rule about it; especially where if that rule exists in writing it's application will lead to a MUCH greater number of problems than if we just deal with odd cases reasonably. --Jayron32 11:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've only followed this discussion a little bit. Looking at a whole lot of content which falls under this discussion over the years, what this is going to do is push our coverage of biographies in general, and BLPs specifically, farther in the direction of content that promotes rather than informs. I hope I'm not alone is stating that some of us are old enough and well-read enough to know what traditionally constituted a biography, and that has been radically redefined only in the last 10 or 15 years under an ill-defined guise of "privacy". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  I agree - it is one thing to remove the month/day on a complaint (usually coupled with accuracy) - it is another to omit the age (a rather important bio detail) all together due to the BLP not wanting it. We already, via the dint of our BLP policies in general, err on the side of being promotional (which is OK) - we don't need to accommodate BLP requests to become more promotional when there are reliable sources for the information. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I guess the goal here is a little slippery, but I thought the original question was whether we should redact stuff like graduation dates if the person doesn't want people to be able to figure out their approximate real age. But I mean if the question is:

1. A person has requested her birth year be redacted -- just the birth year we're talking about right now.
2. And we're confident that it's really them -- they submitted a ticket or whatever.
3. And the person is not at all famous, or "is marginally Wikinotable" if you prefer -- a slippery concept at the margins, true, but you know what we mean -- Todd Decker, John Froines, Kathy Cramer, Gerry Skilton, Gabriele von Lutzau, people like that, for a start; the margins can be argued about on a case-by-case basis.
4. And there isn't some overriding reason to turn down the person's request -- like, for some inexplicable reason the reader can't get a proper grasp of the subject without knowing their exact birth year, or we're just being trolled, or something.
5. Then of course we don't publish the birth year. Right? This is not up for discussion, is it? Tell me this is not up for discussion. This is settled practice, is it not? If you don't agree, please see me in my office. This would be a major change I think. If we're going to start telling people with reasonable (not unreasonable) requests for privacy (not hagiography or content spin) regarding such a minor and unimportant (not major and important) detail to go pound sand... this would not a step forward for the Wikipedia I don't think.

Whether we should redact secondary data such as graduation year etc -- that's a reasonable question to discuss. What constitutes "marginally Wikinotable" -- that's a reasonable question to discuss. Just flat out ignoring tickets on this subject? Not a reasonable question to discuss. Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Absolutely. And Jimbo would say the same. Wikipedia is not here to rub people's noses in things they would rather not be public. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• We are talking about borderline-notable BLPs, not Mozart and Bach, and I support removal of the birth date/year for cases like those outlined by Herostratus just above and by SarahSV at 06:23, 9 November 2018. In an encyclopedia that anyone can edit care should be taken to err on the side of caution. The issue would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis: How much would the birth year contribute to an understanding of the person's work (or whatever it is that makes them notable)? How reliably sourced and well known is the birth date? Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• I am against this because we unnecessarily introduce vague criteria ("borderline notable", "widely published RS") to circumvent Wikipedia policies that have been molded over years. If a person meets our notability criteria, and if a reliable source exists for his year of birth (or even exact date of birth), we include it. Period. No censorship, no delegated editorial power to the subject, no nothing. The only option I'd be willing to grant: if a subject insists, we delete the entire article; but never, under no circumstances, do we allow selective censorship. --bender235 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not really terribly difficult to judge, we do it all the time. Wikipedia is a cluocracy. We got this. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I also oppose this. If a birthdate or any other biographical information is published and available in reliable sources (especially on the internet), it needs to be made unavailable before we remove it from the article. As an OTRS agent, I have actually seen this happen: a notable actress fairly early in her career who looked young but wasn't really young requested that her birthdate be removed from her article because she feared it would impact her career. I explained that if I removed it, someone else would just add it again, because it's publicly-available information. Apparently she and her agents worked hard because a few months later, her birthdate was nowhere to be found in any source anywhere, so we removed it from the article. That's how the removal process should work. Now that her career is well established and she's won some awards, her birthdate is back in the article. The point is that the onus is on the subject to get the sources fixed. The onus is not on Wikipedia to censor itself. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Well but "The other kids were kicking that dog too, so why shouldn't I?" didn't go over well with my Mom and still doesn't work well. Sure at some point there's a reasonable common-sense case to be made that it doesn't matter anymore. A reasonable test is "would it be impossible for us to harm the person"? It's impossible for us to harm (let's say) Barack Obama by publishing his birth year if he asked us not to, because he is so famous and there are so many highly visible and easily accessible sources for this available that adding us to this galaxy would be a drop in the ocean -- it just woundn't matter.

Who was the actress? There's no reason not to tell. If she's Meryl Streep or like that, that's one thing. The fact that she able to scrub the internet of her vital stats indicates she wasn't. To be honest your entire anecdote chills me. If you don't understand why, I probably can't explain it to you. I just thought that OTRS was supposed to function as an ombudsman for our subjects, not like the customer complaint line at Comcast.

And I mean your argument works just as well for "Well, he was arrested for having sex with a goat in 1972 and this fact is easy to find on the internet so -- even though, like his birth year, it doesn't contribute anything useful to understanding the things about this person that make him notable -- let's shove it in there. I mean, anybody who wants to can find it anyway, right? If he doesn't want this fact reported by us, first he should go scrub it off the entire flippen internet then come back to us." This point is in all important respects identical to the one you make, and it's not one I find particularly compelling.

(I was also under the impression that whether info is on the internet is immaterial for our purposes. "Your source is a printed book but I can't find it on the internet, so we don't consider that to be publicly available information" doesn't fly and this works both ways: a person would also have to find and destroy all publicly available hard-copy references to the goat sex or birth year or whatever for us to consider the material to be no longer public for our purposes, would think.)

Something to remember is that we are the 500-pound gorilla in this room, here. We hold all the cards. The other person is just some lone mook. We can damage people's reputations and affect their lives with ease, here, if we chose. And we have. Let's have some self-awareness of this. Stuff that goes in here is highly visible and exists potentially for all time". Altho the Wikipedia will not last forever, material from its database will continue to be pop up even centuries from now for all we know.

If you can, by rhetoric, evidence, and logic, prove to a high level of confidence that including the material either can not and will not cause harm or distress, that's different. The onus, as always, is on the person wishing to include the material.

With great power comes great responsibility. Herostratus (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm on vacation so I usually wouldn't bother to comment (or even look), but since I was asked so nicely to clarify my position... I think it's interesting watching history repeat itself. This new world of the internet is perfectly reminiscent of the world after the invention of the printing press, where newspapers were nothing more than blogs. It took a long time before some standards were imposed, and watching Wikipedia is like seeing happen all over again.

I think there is a balance between the extremes presented here, which should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I firmly believe in a person's right to privacy, but also that they give up some of those rights with notoriety. I think it's very important to consider how our writing affects those we write about rather than adopting some cold, robotic stance that dehumanizes everyone. At the same time, we shouldn't let compassion completely rule our decisions either, especially when it comes to information that will truly help the reader understand the subject. (For example, it's not necessary to name the victims of a car wreck or a rape in order to report that those things occurred; the story loses little by omitting them. Same with exact birthdates, in most cases they're just trivial details that have little effect on the story; about as interesting as height and weight.) Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Fuck yeah. Borderline notable BLPs should be nuked if the subject requests it, and intrusive trivia should be removed if the subject requests it. I view this along the same lines as libel law: a Limited Purpose Public Figure is a Wikipedia borderline notable individual, and has protections that a public person does not. Wikipedia, of all places, should have "don't be evil" in its DNA. Commons not so much, but I digress. Ask any OTRS volunteer. Wikipedia can cause real problems for real people. Don't. Be. Evil. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agree principally based on the aspect that if the birth year is not easily verified in high-quality RSes, and the BLP requests its removal, we should remove it. We'd not remove it if the NYTimes reported it, but would remove it if a borderline tabloid paper is the only one that reports it. --Masem (t) 23:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• In any article there is judgment required for the inclusion of information. For better known people, the information available is voluminous and we only include what is important. So I would say, per Balancing aspects, that we mention the year of birth when it is frequently cited in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - If it relates to something the subject is known for, or has talked about, fine. If it doesn’t, and particularly if the subject is not well known and has requested that the info be excluded, why would we even think about inclusion for one second? I’m mentioned in an article in an innocuous way added by anther editor. But, if someone added an article about me, I’d AfD it as I have no interest in any article about me, much less info that’s nobody’s damn business. Seriously folks, this isn’t 1984 (yet) with cameras in your mirror – or is it? O3000 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, remove or redirect. Why are borderline notable people cluttering up the encyclopedia to begin with? Why are we making ourselves liable for the situation described by SlimVirgin User:SlimVirgin SarahSV above, making people "unemployed". Remove the article, or redirect it, I do not want to be anything to do with making people unemployed as described by User:SlimVirgin above. I am here to help develop an encyclopedia, not here to help unemployed people deal with the consequences of books published about them when they may or may not have been famous ten or more years ago and someone wanted to "help" them by making them "famous" on Wikipedia. Why is this discussion even happening? MPS1992 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. We're not a PR agency, and it is important biographical context. If a person is that borderline notable, nuking the article entirely is a better outcome. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure, but my initial reaction is that if a Wikipedia article that includes a sourced date is an invasion of privacy, the entire article should gotten rid as invasive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Colourful" former politician Matthew Gordon Banks (even his exact name seems to have changed over the years) appears to be editing his own page and removing unflattering info. Some experienced eyes are probably needed on this page. Mezigue (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Re #Years of birth above, some recent IP edits at K. P. Jagan purport to be from the subject (summary "Have to add my birth name also"). One of the edits (diff and the preceding edit) removed the birth year ("Need not mention the birth year") which broke the template. That date is sourced to a webarchive of what is said to be the Tamil Nadu film director's association showing a profile from 2012. Assuming no other reliable source is available, should the birth date be removed? The webarchive sort-of verifies the information but relying on a single archived page is flimsy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I would remove it. That doesn't look like an RS, and if it's the only one, it's a problem.

I notice that Google seems to produce full dates of birth for which no source can be found. I noticed one recently for a BLP at the top of a search for "name + born + year". Google offered the full date in a box at the top and in one of their side boxes. Maybe the full date is in one of the subject's books. It would be interesting if Google were mining its own offline book archives for biographical details to display unsourced. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Careful, many of those Google infoboxes actually mine their data from Wikipedia or Wikidata. Therefore getting someone's date of birth there is a WP:CIRCULAR issue. It might be coming from an old version of the very article you're trying to update, and ultimately be unsourced. --Krelnik (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but no one is suggesting using Google as a source. I checked the history at a couple of articles where Google shows a birth date and could not find that date in earlier revisions. Google is getting it from somewhere else in at least some cases. I asked for opinions on a precise example: should the birth date be removed from K. P. Jagan? Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Townsend

The 6th medal down in the Awards and Decorations section contained a description and link to an award given to German Paratroopers during World War II. I was unable to determine what the medal is actually for but I am sure it is not a Nazi war medal. I have deleted the description and link. Stupidity like this undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Particularly with people who are skeptical already. Not to mention it's not funny and it is quite distasteful.

Thank you for your efforts and noticing the problem [11]. While you're right this is a rather severe mistake, it is almost definitely just a rather unfortunate accident and not any intentional wrong doing. If you click on the image and more details, you will be taken to the file details Commons:File:Fallschirmspringerabzeichen der Bundeswehr in Bronze.jpg. From the other uses especially Awards and decorations of the German Armed Forces and Parachutist Badge, it seems clear it is indeed the modern German Parachutist Badge aka de:Fallschirmspringerabzeichen. It is not either of the Nazi Germany Parachutist Badges aka de:Fallschirmschützenabzeichen. While the German name is different, the nature of the English name means I'm not sure if there is actually a clear name distinction. This is a common problem [12] and we may handle it by changing the page into a disambiguation Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Problem with Parachutist Badge (Germany) that has BLP implications since I think they're more likely to have experience on how to handle this. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Darryl Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I removed WND as a source, because obviously, and found that the article actually has no sources at all other than his own book. I can find a profile on [Darryl Foster CBN] and another on Christian Post but since these are "in-universe" sources I am not sure they establish notability. I can't find any reality-based RS at all (though he does have an entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons, which is nice). In the end I can't find anything of any weight in a source that I would say established notability. But am I being too picky in rejecting the conservative Christian websites here? Guy (Help!) 20:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Augusta Chronicle source you removed probably doesn't establish notability (link was dead but was easy to resurrect it [13]) and is primarily based on interviews but it is IMO probably a RS The Augusta Chronicle and has more than just the passing mention. Most of the others do look to either be questionable RS or just passing mention like the CNN one or [14] or [15]. Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As of today some editors have been adding various claims about this person engaging in sexual misconduct without providing sources. I've reverted the recent ones though I don't want to get blocked for edit warring so I figure I'd report it here as mentioned on the policy page for edit warring. Anyway no protection is (hopefully) needed at present though it'd probably be helpful to have people watching the article. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been semi-protected. I've also watchlisted the page and keep a close eye on it. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm requesting that more eyes who are knowledgeable about WP:BLPs please keep an eye on this article.

There has been a fairly long-term issue with this article with IPs, as well as "newish" named accounts like Sing3, consistently adding poorly sourced and frankly WP:UNDUE material to this article (in a way that unbalances it). Now, some of this info, if properly sourced to secondary sources, may be appropriate to add to the article, but not in the scale that its being added. Also, as mentioned at this User talk page disucssuion, some of the additions are probably "too effusive" or complimentary.

If there's good news here, it's that the editors who make these additions usually do attempt to talk, either at the article's Talk page, or at my Talk page. But this never seems to actually resolve the issue.

Now, I'm not sure if this is coming from some sort of WP:COI or some sort of WP:PAID editor effort – figuring that out is probably above my pay(heh) grade. But I would like other knowledgeable editors' eyes on this, to figure out if there's a way forward. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And WP:UNDUE material has been added back by IP, so would really appreciate other editors taking a look at this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Nblund did a good job at trimming the undue "fat" from this article, but IP is still at it and may not give up. So even more eyes on this one would be appreciated... I will reiterate again that this has been a long-term issue at this article, with more than just this IP attempting to add this WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK content to this article – I don't know if these edits are all originating from the same place/people, but it's a reasonable assumption. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This article on a conservative Australian politician has been incessantly trolled since he joked in parliament "I'm going to declare my gender today - as I can - to be a woman, and then you'll no longer be able to attack me." It was continually vandalised by changing his pronouns to she and adding his article to LGBT and transgender categories until it was semi-protected, and then extended-confirmed-protected after that failed to stop the trolling attempts - in part because said trolling attempts were reported in the Australian media. These have now shifted to the talk page, which basically amounts to a huge BLP violation at this stage. It could really use some more eyes because I'm getting sick of having to address it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was informed by User:172.56.37.228 for assistance, (see here on my talk page - Mike Perry), regarding the removal of Mike Perry (fighter's Controversy section - see HERE . I am here to seek admin help to solve User:172.56.37.228's request and invite all involved editors, User:2600:1702:940:1080:64f6:f749:4956:987e, User:208.54.87.235, User:2600:1702:940:1080:ad70:15a3:feef:a703, User:96.253.25.35 and User:Jahannum, to state their case/discussion and please read about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines. I am indifferent about the section inclusion and understand this is a "controversy topics of a living person. I added some sources in the section as one of the editors stated there are no reliable sources and I will not involved in this discussion. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray has made a series of edits that do not reflect NPOV (IMO). No discussion on the talk page at all, despite there being a very active discussion happening there. A dedicated controversies section has been added which derives most of its material from a single source, which seems borderline Yellow Journalism. POV material added to lede para included murder charges with a single 20-year-old offline reference, which seems to have been reverted after I pointed out the POV-nature of all these edits in the talk page. I do not wish to make any edits on this page right now, as I have been accused of COI and I dont wish to vitiate the atmosphere further until that is at least cleared. Requesting someone take a fresh look and settle the matter. Regstuff (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Regstuff (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. and has been sitebanned for undisclosed paid editing--DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PUBLICFIGURE states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Some of the allegations in the controversy aren't well sourced. However, many of those are well sourced and significantly covered. Participating editors, please put some light on controversy section of Isha Foundation too, the section was removed by Regstuff few months ago. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment--None of the edits by the involved editors seems to be any good from a BLP/NPOV perspective. I will take a detailed look over tomorrow evening (and once the duly-warranted sysop-protection vanishes).∯WBG^converse 16:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The section “Criticisms of Fariña” is suspect. The first paragraph cites as its sole source a self-published essay, the author of which appears to have a personal grievance with the subject. The second (of two) paragraphs cites a New York Post opinion column that "condemned" Farina for “restoring levels of bureaucracy” to the school system, as if doing so was subjectively harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorque (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed the first paragraph, as it was only supported by something that appears to be self published by Philip Nobile, and has no provenance (was posted to SCRIBD).

Also quite dubious about the New York Post; isn't there a general feeling that the New York Post shouldnt be used for BLP's? Curdle (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Musician's birth year/age mentioned throughout the page is not sourced from a reliable source. The reference takes you to a broken Instagram link; not credible. Actual birth year has never been officially stated. Would be ideal to remove all mentions of the '1974' birth year from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.235.142 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The Instagram account in question does not belong to Mercer but someone else, his "brother" and therefore, per WP:SELFSOURCE is making claims about a third party, and inadmissable as a RS for Mercer's birthdate. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for removing this. Please let us know if the problem recurs -- as such things often do. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

An anonymous user is adding contentious language and removing cited language. I would like to lock the article. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topspider (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Simon Hussey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is with respect that i am writing to anyone can assist me in the deletion of a wikipedia page about myself Simon Hussey, Australian Musician.

I have been notified that the article is under investigation or something which i don't comprehend as i am not familiar with wikipedia.

It is unfortunately impacting my legitimacy of my past career when dealing with various institutions as some people consider this article to be red flagged and that i am fraudulent in nature.

Unfortunately in Australia professionals search one's name and judge one by what they read.

I have been accused of fabricating my life because of the wikipedia article warning.

I did not make this page. Why am I being punished by wikipedia? I never asked to be here.

Is there any compassion anywhere anymore. What is the problem with the article?, can someonejust delete it if it is wrong or whatever. Does anyone really care?

I would like to be not prejudged because of something on online media that I don't understand.

Thank you so much if anyone reads this as I really don't know what I am doing.

Simon C Hussey [address redacted] Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussey Simon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A template at the top of the article says that it, the article, is rather suspect. It does not say that you are suspect. Any inference from it that you are fraudulent in nature, or that anyone has fabricated your life, is a gross misreading. Though we may regret gross misreadings, Wikipedia can hardly be responsible for these. Wikipedia is not punishing you.

On 28 May 2018, Facetsof wrote "I act on behalf of the Mr Hussey". On 2 August 2018, Facetsof removed the "COI" template from the top of the article, saying "Resolved issue as contributor has no further involvement with subject and will not be making any more contributions to this page". I have no way of knowing whether Facetsof ever acted "on behalf of the Mr Hussey"; what's clear from the article history is that Facetsof carried on editing the page after saying they wouldn't.

Shlistenwiki's list of contributions shows an exclusive interest in Simon Hussey and major changes to the article. Here, we see Shlistenwiki writing of a photo of Hussey "1993 photo taken of me by friend". Again, I have no way of knowing whether this is true.

You ask: "can someonejust delete [the article] if it is wrong or whatever." The simple answer is no, no one can. However, I note that the article was created not by either of the editors mentioned above but instead by an editor in good standing, Shaidar cuebiyar, who is still active here. Perhaps Shaidar cuebiyar could check the article for quality and, if/when appropriate, remove the "conflict of interest" template. -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to thank @Hoary: for the above summary. According to an analysis, here, Shlistenwiki's contributions to this article comprise some 8% of its current content. However the biggest problem is persistent, disruptive editing by removing verified content or adding biased and/or unsupported claims. I have tried to minimise such interferences and have described them as they appeared over the years. I appreciate other editors who have also reverted/removed contentious material. Without the "conflict of issue" template such vigilance would be reduced.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned that Shlistenwiki's list of contributions shows an exclusive interest in Simon Hussey. I might add that Facetsof's list of contributions (which is fairly long) also shows an exclusive interest in Simon Hussey. Pace Shaidar cuebiyar, but I don't think that xtools can show us what percentage of current content has been added by whom; however, we can see that a considerable percentage of what was added at one time or another (and may have since been removed) was added by one or other of these two editors, one of whom said (truthfully or otherwise) that he was Hussey, the other that he was writing on behalf of Hussey. Despite all of that, in its current state the article resembles the state it was in back in December 2013, after Shaidar cuebiyar alone had contributed to it. I very much hope that Shaidar cuebiyar and/or somebody who's not an SPA can find time to go through it and verify what it says, either sourcing or removing what's labelled as needing sources, and finally removing the template from the top. Meanwhile, Hussey Simon would be welcome to make requests and suggestions at Talk:Simon Hussey. ¶ Hussey Simon, perhaps you have requests, or reasons for requests, that you don't want to broadcast here. If so, please see Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers (specifically "4. You can also email the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team...") for the email address; what you write there will only be read by a very small number of people (not including me) and will be kept confidential. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Xtools says it can show us that[16]. It may be wrong, but it says it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You're both right; I was wrong. Sorry! [Hmm, interesting toy, this: for example, an article that's currently 99.7% mine.] -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hoary: the CoI template can be removed by a consensus of interested, non disruptive editors: I don't have to give my permission. I have discussed this issue further on the article's talk page.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a dispute over whether some material should be in the BLP. The material is negative in tone, but multiple sources have been provided to support it. An account claiming to be the subject of the article, User:Projects2323, removed the material and added some academic information. I noticed the information was all cited and re-added it. I gave a COI notice, as well as a handwritten explanation of Wikipedia policies on defamatory material and how sourced negative material may not be defamatory. Later, the newly created accounts User:Anthony4141 and User:Ks sunflowerz, as well as the IP User:2600:8803:5a00:df20:a8b5:9a6c:2dd8:6782 and User:2600:1700:6200:a970:a97c:64aa:d203:8cf7 also started to remove material or add academic information. I reverted because the negative material was still sourced but the academic material did not seem to be; then the established editor User:Donner60 reverted me, stating that I was not being neutral. I explained my reasoning, and User:Donner60 stated that it would be left up to me and the others involved in the article. Afterwards, some more reversions happened from User:Projects2323 and User:2600:8803:5a00:df20:a8b5:9a6c:2dd8:6782, and then the established editor User:Muboshgu reverted to Donner60's version, stating "Restoring sourced content." This added most of the sourced content back, and then I went back to the version before any editor mentioned here (including me) edited this page, which had all of the sourced content. After that, User:Projects2323 and User:2600:1700:6200:a970:a97c:64aa:d203:8cf7 made similar edits to before, which currently stand in the article.

I'm not sure what to do now. I'm worried about WP:DOLT, but as I said, all the negative information is sourced. All editors mentioned here have been informed. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: Binksternet reverted more of Projects2323's edits [17], and issued a ((uw-npov4)) warning [18]. Projects2323 then returned to the article to delete two sources about sexual misconduct allegations against the article subject and add claims not supported by the source they left, questioning the accuser's reliability, [19] which I reverted [20]. FourViolas (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I also requested protection for the article.[21] It's clear from this addition that Projects2323 is violating the WP:No original research policy, as well as demonstrating a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, My Name is Nishikanth Prabhu, i am journalist here in local alwal, people who have personal agenda of making true leaders falling down are making my work harder. WikiDan61,Ponya etc These people may be renowned but have personal disputes with a good leader. They start to falsely accuse this leader. Shri Mynampally Hanumanth Rao he is a leader who helps poor people and bring development. He has noway connection with the assault spree which shown by wikidan61 and other people. It was this DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishikanthprabhu (talk • contribs) 05:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

For reference, this is about Mynampally Hanmanth Rao · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions], and the above user's interactions (and/or lack thereof) with WikiDan61 (talk · contribs) and Ponyo (talk · contribs). The OP is presently the subject of an SPI.
What I can see is that Nishi has been reverted multiple times (by different editors each time) because he's introducing uncited claims, removing cited claims, and editing against a consensus. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of edit warring in the past, and one editor Vr46.bna has been temporarily blocked over the issue. Nishikanthprabhu then came and started making the same edits, wherein the sole reliable source in the article was removed, and blatantly promotional material was added. For this reason, the SPI case was opened. There is already a discussion at Talk:Mynampally Hanmanth Rao regarding the dispute, which neither SPA editor has entered. This noticeboard discussion seems redundant given the existing discussion at the relevant talk page. I would warn the original poster that WP:BOOMERANG may ensue here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Despite the accusation that I "have personal disputes with a good leader", my only involvement in the article is as an admin. In order to help drive the discussion to the talk page, I've EC protected the article for a week. Be prepared for some SPA action on that talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• John Roycroft (kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has blanked the article with the edit summary "Subject does not want this page published. Requests it be removed." Their address geolocates to a city very close to Atlanta, Georgia, where the subject resides, so it seems to be plausible for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Personally, as the editor who tagged as a poorly sourced BLP in 2016, and doing a cursory search now, I would concur that the subject is relatively unknown and in general non-notable so wouldn't mind seeing this article go. Reporting it here so someone with the proper powers can actually delete it instead of it being blanked as it is now Opencooper (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

My powers are weak (according to Anakin), but I've slapped a WP:PROD on it to see if it sticks. MPS1992 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Rune Reilly Kölsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I noticed that this article had a BLP PROD attached to it recently. As it was reasonably easy to find reliable sources and more information, and it was clear to me from those sources that the subject of the article met WP:MUSICBIO, I added references and more information, and removed the PROD. Included in the information I added were names previously used by the artist (easily found in the sources), and hits he had under those other names, which are (as far as I can see) the basis for his notability. All of my edits have just been reverted, by someone I see has previously made edits to the article saying "This is an edit coming from the artist mgt and himself. The artists alias linked to this page are NOT correct and have all been disbanded. If any they should have there own wiki pages."

By reverting all my edits, this editor has reinstated the PROD. I have left a comment on the article Talk page saying "User Lagerlagerfeld, please be aware that in reverting all my edits, you have reinstated the proposed deletion of this page. The page is likely to be deleted without discussion, as the BLP PROD is for articles about living people which have no references. You have just removed all the references I added. Also, without the information about the names that Kölsch has previously performed under, and his earlier hits, he would not be considered to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and would therefore not be eligible to have an article in Wikipedia. See the general notability guidelines for all articles WP:GNG, the basic criteria for articles about people WP:BASIC, and the specific guidelines about musicians WP:NMUSIC. I will not attempt to stop the deletion of this article again, as it seems that Kölsch does not want an article on the terms that Wikipedia sets."

Then it occurred to me to wonder whether notable people can in fact delete information that is publicly available, and sabotage their own page to the point where it will be deleted? This person is not hugely famous, but as I said, I think that he does meet WP:MUSICBIO, and if someone associated with him didn't keep removing information from the article, it would be properly referenced. So this is kind of an academic question - I had never heard of this musician before finding the PROD, and don't want to waste time on an article where it's just going to get removed again - but it does make me curious about what Wikipedia does in these circumstances. (Although I've been a Wikipedia user for 9 years, I had only made 3 minor edits before June this year, so there is still a lot I am unfamiliar with.) Many thanks! RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This is happening under WP:BLPPROD which is subtly different from WP:PROD, but even so the actions by Lagerlagerfeld seem high handed so I have undone them for the moment. The article probably belongs at WP:AFD, but that's no reason to cut corners quite so agressively. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

He had a number one hit album. That justifies him under WP:MUSICBIO, no? Not, I hasten to add, that I am an authority on Danish techno... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

This may not be the correct location for this comment, so please correct or re-direct as appropriate: The entry on Hogan Gidley has internally inconsistent information. The main article shows his birthplace to be Arkansas (under "Early Life and Career"), but the sidebar summary shows North Carolina. I do not know the truth, but he could not have been born in both places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.130.138 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

An IP editor made that change, but didn't include a source, so I've reverted it.--Auric talk 15:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Alyson Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• At issue: per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:Twitter-EL, can "unverified" Twitter accounts be used to document Court's relationship with a non-notable person? Also, can a Game Informer article be used to support assertions about an alleged marriage which are not mentioned in the article? 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks resolved currently, disputed content is removed, discussion is at Talk:Alyson_Court#Unsourced_relationships Govindaharihari (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There's 2 active RFCs at the talkpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, concerning infobox content of US governors-elect & lieutenant governors-elect. More input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Having issues with someone constantly reverting the Martin Dossett entry to having him play for the Packers when he did not. Being signed in the offseason and waived less than a month later does not qualify him as a member of the Packers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:343:8101:7A1F:C484:2E47:F9B8:1407 (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Karan Nath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited a few times by Robby zx (talk · contribs) to restore an unsourced date of birth and height. In two recent edit summaries, this user has accused me of vandalism when I have removed the unsourced content. I have removed the unsourced content twice today, so instead of risking 3RR, I am posting here for third-party input. --Geniac (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced birthdates are definitely BLP violations. Height is different, assuming the person is in the public, as that can at least be estimated, but that should at least have some type of source. --Masem (t) 17:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the unsourced birth and height details and warned Robby zx (talk · contribs), but they have again added it and called the revert vandalism. Perhaps some administrator action or protection is in order? Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

They're at 4 reverts now. Woodroar (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a source for the birthdate[22] but have no idea if it is reliable, and I am also concerned that Robby zx has ignored my attempts to explain what they are doing wrong, instead choosing to edit war and make false accusations of vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

celebrityborn.com is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The article: On November 23, 2016, then-President-elect Donald Trump announced that he would nominate DeVos to serve as Secretary of Education in his administration, after his initial pick, Jerry Falwell Jr., rejected the offer.[14]

The citation is a link to a Washington Post article that in no way mentions Jerry Falwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.18.228 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily an egregious BLP violation; I can easily find articles that have Falwell claiming Trump asked him first. [23]. Just needs to be added. --Masem (t) 15:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not prone to consider Jerry Falwell a reliable source on this. Or much else, for that matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with NatGertler. We only have Falwell's word on this, and he is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I should have been clear that we have RSes that are reporting that Falwell said this, they call it a "claim" but don't seem to doubt it. --Masem (t) 14:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I have deleted the claim that Falwell was offered the spot from the lead of the Betsy DeVos article. I have not yet deleted the statement in the body of the article that Falwell has claimed to have been offered the spot, although I am tempted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

On the page Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018) a conflict has erupted over whether to publish the name and identity details of the slain soldier such as his age, ethnic affiliation and parental status (father of two). It has been discussed here Talk:Gaza–Israel_clashes_(November_2018)#Name_of_the_deceased. I and other editors think this information if pertinent to the article. Reason being that soldiers KIA is a big deal in Israel, just like it is in the US, and leads to consequences. In particular, Jewish MKs have tweeted pictures of him and his non-Jewish ethnicity has been a point of discussion and his funeral was attended by thousands. Another editor resists attempts to add this information, claiming it violates the WP:BLP policy.

The name and identity of the slain soldier is currently an "open secret," the information circulates in Israeli social media and blogs and is essentially known to all - even Israeli MKs. Supposedly because the soldier was a member of a special forces unit, the Israeli Military Censor has banned the Israeli media from printing his name and identity. Therefore there is no "reputable" source that has printed his name, possibly save for one Arabic al-Jazeera article. But the article admits that it picked up the name from Israeli social media.

Can someone who understands the policy well clarify whether adding his name is a WP:BLP policy violation? I would think not, because Wikipedia isn't bound by the rules of the Israeli censors, but I don't know. ImTheIP (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of Israeli censorship - which has no bearing on Wikipedia. The BLP question here is whether you have a WP:BLPSOURCES complaint source - which a blog (which incidentally, has some of the details wrong, but that's besides the point) is not.Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There are at least six sources; [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] one of which is al-Jazeera.

His identity has also been published by mistake by Israeli authorities [30] and Israeli MKs and journalists claim to know who he is. Shelly Yachimovich of the Zionist Union tweeted a blurred photo [31] which makes him trivial to identify because the photo was taken from his Facebook account.

If I understand your argument correctly, the conclusion of it is that no names that the Israeli military has censored can ever be published on Wikipedia because the Israeli media generally objeys the restrictions of the censors. ImTheIP (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the tenets of WP:RS. What the Israeli censor does or doesn't do has no bearing on how wikipedia assesses its sources. Five of the six "sources" you mention are totally unacceptable, and Al-Jazeera is imo dubious. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As of this point in time, I've found ten sources that all publish the same name (although in Arabic or with different transliterations to English), age, ethnicity and hometown. These are Richard Silverstein's blog, Islam21c, Al-Jazeera, Saree Makdisi on Twitter, Sama News, Al-Jarida, Russia Today, Khaberni News, Echorouk News and Euronews. Given the circumstances, I do not understand how that can't be sufficient. ImTheIP (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As was previously stated by some who replied to your concern, the number of sources does not matter because it all boils down to whether they are reliable according to Wikipedia standards. Blogs and Twitter posts, for instance, are questionable and you can check the details here: WP:RSSELF. Even those sources that sound reliable must also have a reputation for fact-checking in order to qualify. See: WP:UNRELIABLE. Darwin Naz (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But most of those sources are from news sites, so I believe the reliability criteria is full-filled per WP:NEWSORG. ImTheIP (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Orly Lobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I pruned this article of some very florid language. Turns out that most of the editors are WP:SPAs and one admitted being asked to add Lobel's work to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The offenses seem not to be recent - nice to prune the BLP but the templates only will confuse readers at this point, no? Collect (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. There are two articles about the same person: Hanna Sądej and Hanna Rycharska--Pbk (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

They don't seem identical. Sądej is 6ft 0in and Rycharska is 6ft 1in. They also play different positions, have different stats, as well as the different last names. --Auric talk 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have doubt that the two articles are about same person. The two articles are lacking sources and the date of birth of these two persons are same. Content of these two articles are almost same except dob and height.

Hamim000000 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Both articles have one source apiece.--Auric talk 15:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the OP's first post in a year, which is strange since they requested renaming in 2015 and their username was moved to Pbk~enwiki --Auric talk 15:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely typical problem with articles on sportsists. They are drawn from directory-style sources, often only one namecheck, and it's impossible to reconcile the sports fans' desire for a copmlpete directory of every player with Wikipedia's sourcing criteria. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• see i.e here: "Rycharska (pod panieńskim nazwiskiem Sądej)", and use the google translator:)--Pbk (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As discussed here, an IP has been adding info regarding a court case involving Fadlo R. Khuri, sourced only to the description of said court case on Justia, to the article on Khuri. It has been repeatedly removed because the article on Khuri is a BLP, and Justia is the kind of primary source that won't cut it for such controversial claims on BLPs. Yet the IP has re-added it many times, including just now in this edit (which I have reverted). Eyes requested on the article in the likely event that this happens again. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This should not be iin sourced to a court document (with a possible dash of OR). I have this watchlisted and requested protection at RfPP.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is fake. quote: "He was married with a daughter, but the marriage ended in divorce." source: Harnden, Toby (15 September 2011). "A Page in the Life: Bernard Cornwell". The Telegraph. Retrieved 28 November 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:71:27FA:5D65:8A25:D7C4:6BA8 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed for now.[32] Qualitist (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)