This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you have an issue with accuracy and policy. Your count is off. I never posted THIS anywhere but here and if you don't see the BLP issues fine but don't make crap up or exaggerate. I made an RFC and posted requests for editors to add input at locations suggested by the RFC instructions. Again, to our guidelines. This post is about the BLP issues and has nothing to do with the RFC which is simply about a template box. This however, is your second post with huge inaccuracies and baseless accusations against me.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Andy Fletcher (umpire) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After a controversially called baseball game last night between the Rockies and Dodgers, many edits have been made to Andy Fletcher's page. While some of the most outlandish have been removed, there are still numerous "factual" information things listed that are either false, incorrectly sourced and unknown through other web searches, or not sourced at all and unknown through other web searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:517F:CD00:987:87FE:E116:CAAF ( talk) 12:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about moving the article to Charlene McMann, a WP:BLP1E question. Guy ( Help!) 22:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• We've been here before, haven't we? It depends whether you consider McMann to be notable apart from her criminal acts. Wrote a book, promoted a radio show, received an award ... there are certainly a few reasonable sources there, though it's marginal. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Merrick Garland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The section about his nomination by President Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court contains a number of opinions instead of facts, and unsubstantiated statements. These include that he was "the most qualified in history" and that the opposition party's view that such nominations are not acceptable the last year of a presidency "unprecedented." It is a politically charged subject that should be handled with great academic precision in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdmoss ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Specifically? Guy ( Help!) 22:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm finding neither statement in the article. The term "unprecedented" is used in the article to refer only to the refusal to hold hearings, not some opinion of theirs. The term "most qualified" does not appear anywhere in the article, which has not been changed for several days. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Evgeny Ponasenkov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was recently recreated (was deleted via AfD, recreated, tagged with WP:G4 by me, redeleted). Since I cannot access deleted versions and don't remember of its previous state, I'd like someone else to assess if it should be tagged with G4 again (and maybe create-protected if so). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 02:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering there's no input, I'll CSD and see. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 09:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Asa Akira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Her birthday is January 3rd, 1985 and she isn't married at the moment and got a divorce in 2017-2018 I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertJCamacho ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have a reliable, published source for that information, and can cite it, you can either update the article or mention this on the article's Talk page where other editors will consider adding it. If you don't, please see Verifiability. General Ization ^Talk 21:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

She mentioned it on her podcast titled the Pornhub Podcast with Asa Akira. I don't have published source but a podcast describes it well. if this article helps. http://mikesouth.com/reader-mail/asa-akira-husband-toni-ribas-really-getting-divorce-reader-email-18790/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertJCamacho ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

David Brock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Under Personal Life - this entry has him born in both Washington DC and Hackensack, NJ. Since it also mentions his father and it only uses Brock, there's the off chance that the second time it was referring to the father, but that seems unlikely.

Brock was born in Washington, D.C. and was adopted by Dorothea and Raymond Brock. ^[1] He has a younger sister, Regina. Brock was raised Catholic. His father, whom Brock has described as "a Pat Buchanan conservative", ^{[1] [2]} was a marketing executive.

Born in Hackensack, Brock grew up in nearby Wood-Ridge, ^[3]

Looks like that was added by Alansohn back in November. Perhaps they can explain why we have two birth locations. Zaereth ( talk) 01:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Zaereth, my edit was based on this source from The Washington Post, which states "DAVID BROCK Occupation: Author of the new book The Republican Noise Machine and president of Media Matters for America, a Washington research center that tracks 'conservative misinformation.' Born: July 23, 1962, in Hackensack, N.J.; grew up on Windsor Street and Sussex Road in Wood-Ridge, N.J."

There is another claim that he was born in Washington, D.C., which points to a book. I'm not sure what it says in the book, but I'm pretty darn sure that The Washington Post is a reliable source. Someone needs to reconcile the conflicting claims, but I'm not sure what more I can do here beyond confirming the basis of my edit to the article. Alansohn ( talk) 04:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I agree, and I'm sure the original poster will also, that the Post is indeed a reliable source. I found the book on google. I didn't get full access but was able to scan for words like "born", which appears 5 times, or "Washington", which appears nine, but none of them anywhere near together. And "born" only appears once in the context of childbirth, referring to his mother. All in all, I would probably go with your source, because the other one doesn't seem to check out. Zaereth ( talk) 05:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The book says his father was born in Jersey City (pp.10-11). It might be that he was adopted in Hackensack, although the book does mention that he concealed his adoption from non-family members (p. 12). I found 6 references to Washington, D. C. but nothing about his place of birth.-- Auric talk 11:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Adam Milstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate it if a second set of eyes could be deployed to Adam Milstein. I am concerned about the series of edits here that added contentious material from an Al Jazeera documentary a documentary that was to be broadcast on Al Jazeera but was not. I have several concerns:

1. Placement in the lead, which strikes me as WP:UNDUE emphasis.

2. The sourcing. This is an Al Jazeera documentary. AJ strikes me problematic for BLPs considering its hostile editorial stance on such issues. But AJ itself is not the source. Instead it This is sourced to Electronic Intifada, an anti-Israel website. Haaretz is also used, but just to regurgitate what Al Jazeera filmaker says in its documentary, so it is not independent sourcing. I think that per WP:REDFLAG multiple independent sourcing is required, especially since it is denied by Milstein (not presently noted in the article).

3. POV phraseology ("censored").

I hesitate to revert as it is not a clearcut situation and also may fall afoul of some arbcom sanction of which I am not aware. This article can definitely use more eyes anyway. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note corrections. This was to be an Al Jazeera documentary but was actually never broadcast. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This deletes information that mr Milstein served 3 months on felony charges back in 2009. There are 2 sources:

• "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TUVIA MILSZTEIN SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 3 3 4 2 ADAM MILSTEIN (LAST 4 DIGITS)". FindACase.
• "Active Philanthropist Adam Milstein – a Growing Connector in the Jewish World". JNS.
• Why did Israel intervene for convicted US felon Adam Milstein? Abraham Greenhouse, The Electronic Intifada, 15 December 2014

According to the third source, Milstein, (or someone close to him/sympathetic to him) have apparently gone through a lot of trouble hiding his felony conviction. What are editors views on this, can it, or can it not be included in the Milstein article? (see also the Talk:Adam Milstein page) Huldra ( talk) 22:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

See the section above also on Milstein, concerning his mention in an Al Jazeera documentary. We have editors anxious to add contentious material to this bio based on rather questionable sourcing. As I said in the section above this one concerning Milstein, we need more eyeballs on this article. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It has earlier been noted here, that apparently "There seems to be some difficulty in keeping them free from duplication and promotion" between this article, and the Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation article. Huldra ( talk) 22:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's puffy. But we don't cure puffery in one article by cutting corners on sourcing concerning criminal convictions in a related BLP. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note - not an Al Jazeera documentary, but rather a documentary produced for Al Jazeera that Al Jazeera decided not to publish and that bits of were subsequently leaked. Sourcing for the tax evasion claims include findacase - redacted court documents. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Icewhiz: Thanks, I've corrected. I'd suggest relocating this note to the previous section concerning Milstein. I've changed the title of this one to reflect that there are two sections on this page. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Le Monde: Kleinfeld managed to talk to Canary Mission’s founder and financial backer, Adam Milstein, chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC). Milstein was jailed briefly for tax fraud in 2009, but that didn’t prevent him from carrying on his activities from prison.

  Seems to be a rock solid source supporting all the above. nableezy - 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Liu Qiangdong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I don't wish to get into an edit war, but various editors keep adding the mugshot of Liu Qiangdong, who has not been charged, let alone convicted, of a crime. My reading is this is a plain violation of WP:MUG. Don't know how this article is meant to be protected to avoid continued reinsertion of the photo.

Thanks, ^Bongo _matic 17:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Page protection is not used to resolve a straightforward content dispute. I would suggest you take your concerns to the talk page (I see there is not a topic to do with WP:MUG there) and note why you feel use of the mugshot to be a violation of this policy. That said, I'd question his notability per WP:BLP1E the coverage about his business activity all seems rather routine, JD.com isn't Alibaba Group and frankly between his article and the current article for JD.com you might have enough notable non- WP:PEACOCK content for one article, but not both. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the BLP issues, I've blacklisted the image for the time being. We can't have an image in a BLP of a mugshot when a person hasn't been convicted or even charged with a crime. There's currently a deletion discussion at Commons but it will end in a Keep, because, well, people from Commons. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Because 107.184.94.232 is a newbie, and every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment, I am going to add that, traditionally, we agree to delete articles on individuals who are on the cusp of notability, as a courtesy -- and we don't normally offer courtesy deletion of articles on individuals who are clearly notable. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It is been in draft state for more than 2 months though all the references and neutral point of view is maintained on the article: /info/en/?search=Draft:Bhanumathi_Narasimhan can someone move to the next step? Or explain what else need to be added or removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnarsimhan ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well, it certainly isn't neutral ("Smt. Vishalakshi was a woman with phenomenal inner strength"), the Early Years section is unsourced, and much of it is copied from [spam.artofliving.org/sites/www.artofliving.org/files/wysiwyg_imageupload/Bhanumathi_Narasimhan_Bio.pdf here]. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

@ PaleoNeonate: I actually don't think the subject is sufficiently notable. The wider record label(s) seem to be, but a stand-alone biography for the subject does not appear justified. One to merge? AGK [•] 18:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it again and it seemed to be a duplicate of the label article, so I restored the redirect. Thank you for your insight, — Paleo Neonate – 02:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Carmen María Montiel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ongoing spat between account/IPs which appear to represent the article's subject on one side and her ex-husband on the other. One group wants the article to be blatantly promotional, the other wants to include a bunch of probable BLP violations. Right now I don't have the time to make a concerted effort to pick this mess apart, so I'm bringing it here for community input. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 12:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on further investigation I'm not sure she meets the notability requirements, so I've flagged it for deletion. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 13:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Does it make sense to add birth year on a BLP if we don't know the exact birth year but just the age of the person. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is what the template {{ Birth based on age as of date}} is for. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

At least two women have claimed to have been Mac Miller's final girlfriend, and this is not verified by any reliable source (all sources come from tabloid sites like Mirror, OK and Lad Bible). As WP:BLP covers the recently deceased, can editors keep an eye on this until or if it is verified. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been a whirlwind of editors changing the lede of recent U.S. Open winner Naomi Osaka's article. Her father is Haitian, she was born in Japan to a Japanese mother and moved to America at the age of 3. She is fluent in English but not Japanese. When she registered for tennis she decided to represent Japan, while maintaining two citizenships and staying in the United States. She currently has both Japanese and American citizenship. So there are many options that people have supported. There is a lot of discussion at Talk:Naomi Osaka and much controversy around this. There is currently an RfC trying to decide this at this discussion string. I would appreciate any feedback or comments. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

For Morris Chang, I have done my best to explain that we should use Taiwan rather than Republic of China (which redirects to Taiwan), per WP:COMMONNAME, but without success, and do not want to be accused of edit-warring. Perhaps someone else would like to try! Please refer to the article history, rather than the talkpage. Edwardx ( talk) 11:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is mostly sourced from one archived source. While it's a valid source, the Parliament of Canada website, it's a self-published source and almost everything comes from it. Thoughts on what should be done with this page, thank you. Article: Linda Frum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmoseneca ( talk • contribs) 15:00, September 6, 2018 (UTC)

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

• Frum was appointed to the Canadian Senate. Doesn't that mean WP:POLITICIAN applies, not WP:GNG?
• Let me echo Simonm223's request to Pmoseneca, for them to explain the problem they see with the article. Pmoseneca, prior to her Senate appointment Frum was a writer of two best-selling books. Aren't there plenty of references to support that? Surely that would have satisfied any GNG notability concern? Geo Swan ( talk) 20:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• WP:GNG always applies. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I know some people share your opinion.

    But if the narrow specific criteria of our special purpose notability guidelines don't override GNG, what is the point of having them?

    Didn't we establish those special purpose notability guidelines for what we consider good reasons to override GNG? Politicians, for instance -- we want to be comprehensive. If we cover some members of some country's legislature, and not others, it could give the appearance of censorship. When we cover legislators who don't seem to measure up to GNG, no one is going to suspect we are suppressing coverage due to bigotry. Traditional paper encyclopedias covered politicians of both the notable and non-notable variety, and we would be letting down our readers if we didn't do likewise.

  • Some of our special purpose notability guideline are, or at least were, clear that they superceded GNG for their specific narrow criteria. Others are mealy-mouthed about it. Personally, I think it would be better if they all clearly and aggressively spelled out that they superceded GNG. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

While one source is archived, there is more than one source here. I've also added the updated version of the archived page to the EL section.-- Auric talk 11:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, not a BLP but possibly a BLP violation with the naming of the perpetrators using unreliable sources and possibly in contravention of Canadian law, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the perpetrator names from the article, as they did not come from reliable sources. The offending revisions have been removed. Brad v 18:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• • thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 13:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Bradv, Binksternet and Pharos persistently restore copyright violations, BLP violations, content sourced to unreliable sources, and BLP content sourced to sources inappropriate for BLP. There's too much disruption for me to revert without breaching 3RR. This has been going on for weeks. wumbolo ^^^ 16:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The only potential BLP violations were in a specific 'Advocates' section. I don't understand why you would conflate this with the use of some primary sources about the beliefs of explicit neo-Nazis (who are no longer living), and why you wouldn't approach this section by section. We can (and should) do this on the talk page.-- Pharos ( talk) 16:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo Have you attempted to discuss this on the talk page? It looks like you're removing 13,000 bytes, including removing citations to reliable sources Guardian, and you haven't offered anything beyond an edit summary as an explanation. You're going to need to be a lot more specific and detailed if you want to gain consensus for those changes. Nblund ^talk 16:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian article is an opinion piece; that's why I've removed it. It was used as a source for some content for which an opinion piece is an inappropriate citation (most likely even with in-text attribution). wumbolo ^^^ 16:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this article is an opinion piece, and some of the claims attributed to opinion articles can be easily verified: the Ann Coulter quote calling the Boer "the only real refugees" was also reported in other outlets. It's worth noting that reputable outlets generally don't let opinion writers outright lie or make up quotes, they may be less than ideal as sources, but they aren't prima facie unreliable. These are exactly the sort of issues that can be sorted out by raising them at the talk page. Nblund ^talk 17:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That article is definitely not an opinion piece - the guardian clearly labels what section an article is in the top bar; this article is in the section "news" not "opinion" Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ Wumbolo: I asked you repeatedly on your talk page to identify which part of your massive deletion of text constituted BLP violations, and you refused to answer. Take this to the talk page of the article, and address it one piece of a time. You're never going to get consensus for deleting large sections without explanation. Brad v 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Only to comment broadly that having a list of people that support this conspiracy that are pieced together by the sources (particularly twitter) is a bit problematic. If the people are essential to the theory's propagation (as, say, Alex Jones was for Pizzagate) then should included in a prose-based history section, otherwise this becomes a "hit list" of sorts that anyone can add to with weak demonstration of sourcing, which is a BLP problem. -- Masem ( t) 13:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Littman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was recently created by Philafrenzy ( talk · contribs), with stub content to suggest notability. The nominal subject of this BLP may not meet notability standards under WP:PROF or WP:BLP1E. The article has limited notable biographical content about Littman. It is primarily a WP:COATRACK for content about a gender-related theory that has no article of its own: rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). Littman published the first descriptive study about ROGD in August 2018, which was newsworthy and highly controversial, but very WP:RECENT.

As a BLP, the Littman article has major WP:NPOV issues of balance under WP:BALASP and WP:NOTNEWS. Its content is primarily about one study she published, or about ROGD (the subject of the study), rather than being about her and her career. The topic of the research is probably notable, independent from Littman, and I would suggest that an article about ROGD should be split from this BLP, or that the page be moved to give it an appropriate non-BLP title.

Advice and review from administrators and other experienced editors would be very welcome. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 21:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this article has had a huge expansion since I created it. See the history. Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is way, way off subject. As you said, it's all about her paper and almost nothing about her. Similarly, nearly all the reliable sources are about her theory, not her, and the ones that are about her are not secondary sources but mostly University profiles. And it cites her own papers as sources for an article that is supposed to be about her, which is a problem on so many levels, not the least of which is it just reads like an advertisement for her work. (Wikipedia should not promote fame nor fuel controversies, but our subjects should already have fame and their controversies be controversial enough to remember when all is said and done.) It looked a lot better in the beginning (I did look at the history), but had the same problem with a lack of secondary sources which were specifically about her. It seems her theory is much more notable than she is, so perhaps it should be renamed after the theory. However, that gets us into issues with RECENT and FRINGE, so I think it's best to wait on including any of it and see where it is in a week, month or whatever. Zaereth ( talk) 21:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not even really about her paper; it's about the controversy about the paper. So, a tangent of a tangent. I've previously supported "wait and see" attitude, so just reiterating that here. Mathglot ( talk) 01:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• These are BLP (or BLP1E) issues, and we have time-sensitive Wikipedia policies like WP:AVOIDVICTIM, which says, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." (Emphasis added.) I brought this to a noticeboard because of "wait and see". Is it really best to allow non-neutral, off-topic content about a living person to remain intact (and likely grow) in a BLP, while the subject is still in the public eye for a WP:RECENT event? Do we wait to remove the content until after the BLP1E event has blown over? That seems to be a reversal of the usual priorities. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 03:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

By "wait and see", what I meant is delete all the controversy stuff and all the fringe theory stuff (basically cut it back to what Philafrenzy had) and wait to see if it is still a big deal in a few weeks/months. Once you do that, however, we seem to be left with an article of nothing but primary sources (university profiles) which I don't think are enough to establish notability on their own, so I would personally recommend the article for deletion until such time that notability can be established (for more than one thing) in secondary sources. Zaereth ( talk) 03:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

the right thing to do here is ideally a TNT to move the relevant content on ROGD to its own article, including the stuff about the controversy, and then redirect the Littman article to that ROGD. Littman may be independentaly notable but with this controversy, let's use BLP to be the benefit of the doubt to not draw more attention to her that is about the controversy. -- Masem ( t) 03:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. @ Masem: I'm assuming that by a TNT, what you mean is to TNT the BLP by: (1) removing the lead and first 3 paragraphs (perfunctory bio content), (2) doing a page move of the remaining Rapid onset gender dysphoria content, and (3) leaving a redirect from Littman. Would it be too soon for an administrator to close & do that? Because I don't see anyone (above, or at the talk page) saying that this BLP should be kept. On that, there seems to be a clear consensus. The only lack of consensus is about where to move the ROGD material, and that some people want to wait (how long?) for further developments in the controversy over the study, before they'd act on moving the non-BLP content out of the BLP. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 21:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, though there's an option to consider possibly revdeling the content of the Littman page after its moved (we need still the attribution of what is brought over). -- Masem ( t) 21:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• FYI, further discussion has been taking place at WT:MED#Proposed Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria medical page lacks references, as well as Talk:Lisa Littman. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 02:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down there. I strongly disagree with the proposal to move some of the content to a new ROGD article, but I'm not going to make that argument again here, because it's already being discussed elsewhere. @ Lwarrenwiki:, I applaud your efforts to bring this to a resolution, and for your good faith, including linking to discussions going on at other venues. But while it's great to seek expert opinion on BLP and/or MED topoics, bringing the discussion to two venues other than the article talk page might be viewed as forum shopping. Worse, in your 21:03, 9 Sept. response above, you appear to be seeking an admin to move material out of the article into a new, ROGD article right now ("is it too soon...?"), while an Rfc on this very subject is going on right now at the article Talk page. An Rfcdiscussion which you started. You should let the Rfc run its course, though, before making, or apppearing to make, admin requests elsewhere. To your credit, you have duly linked the other discussions.

In particular, the option to move portions of the Lisa Littman article to a new, ROGD article is one of the alternatives in the Rfcdiscussion that you created, and thus far, other than your !vote in favor, it has garnered only opposition, as well as comments from a user who came in from WPMED to point out that this alternative was a violation of policy. So, I'm a little concerned that in asking for rapid admin action here, it might appear as an attempt to garner support for an alternative that isn't working in the Rfc the way you would like. As I've had nothing but good interactions with you thus far and don't doubt your good faith, I'm sure this is not your intent. As long as you are transparent about the ongoing Rfc, and explain why it is you seek admin action here now, I think it should be fine. You also say above that [t]he only lack of consensus is about where to move the ROGD material, but that is not correct, since some think it should be deleted and not moved anywhere, so using your statement as a basis for an admin request to move the material does not fly, since no such consensus exists.

Having said all that, I agree with Zaereth's proposal to cut the Littman article way back, then wait and see. (Revdelling seems an unneeded overreaction to me.) At that point, imho, the remaining stub would be subject to an Afd discussion for academic non-notability, but that's a completely separate discussion for another time and place. Pinging @ Flyer22 Reborn, CFCF, SarekOfVulcan, Freepsbane, and WhatamIdoing:. Mathglot ( talk) 07:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot ( talk) 18:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• @ Mathglot: Thank you for the presumption of good faith. I'd like to back that up, in case of doubt, with this:

1. Because I was the only one at Talk:Lisa Littman who believed there was urgency about BLP issues, I took that matter to BLP/N five days ago ( diff), and I promptly put a banner at the top of the talk page ( diff).
2. I didn't intend to create an RFC. I created a section of the talk page, and another editor tagged that ongoing talk page discussion as an RFC. ( diff)
3. The additional discussion at WT:MED was started by another editor 3 days ago ( diff). I didn't know that the discussion at WT:MED had already been ongoing for more than a day, when I expressed support for taking questions to "WP:MEDRES" ( diff). And the response I got ( diff) didn't tell me that it had already been started the previous day, so you can imagine my surprise when I located it on my own.

Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 11:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• At this point, I've come around to the wait and see position – and I am the only editor who was urging immediate action here. I strongly support splitting ROGD content to a new article; however, since there's also strong opposition to creating the new article, I support maintaining the WP:STATUSQUO at the Lisa Littman article (as of the time of this writing). Perhaps we should all stand down for a few weeks, as others have suggested. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 12:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Lisa Littman § Spectrum of fringe theories

 – A discussion below this point is moved to the talk page, as suggested below by Jytdog ( talk · contribs). Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 17:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Discussion moved to Talk:Lisa Littman#Spectrum of fringe theories as suggested. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 17:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• there is no point to the main two disputants re-litigating this here. It is just clutter. If folks are interested in discussing this, the best place would be Talk:Lisa Littman. There is also a sprawling discussion at WT:MED as well. Jytdog ( talk) 15:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I withdraw my initial notice here, since the article has been changed considerably ( diff) since I brought the notice to BLP/N. It's far from perfect, but good faith discussions are ongoing at its talk page. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 17:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I represent Mr Crick and would like to highlight the facts below to address inaccuracies on his Wiki page Michael Crick

In "Early life":

Mr Crick did not chair the Young Fabians while at Oxford. He was Chairman and co-founder of the Oxford University Fabians, and subsequently, after leaving Oxford, in 1980-81, Chairman of the national Young Fabians.

In "Career":

The Bootle episode happened in 1990, eleven years after he left university. It is more accurate to say he was "sounded out" about contesting Bootle for Labour, but turned down the "suggestion" rather than an "offer", because it was not an offer.

Awards:

He also won RTS Specialist Journalist of the Year in 2018 ^[1] - and the 2018 Charles Wheeler Award for outstanding contribution to broadcast journalism ^[2]

194.169.221.235 ( talk) 17:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• The article is not protected. You czn change these items yourself, as long as you have the requisite sources. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried editing this according to the request. However, I could not find any sources for the changes required. So if you know of some, you can post the link here. - Darwin Naz ( talk) 23:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the Young Fabians claim as the sources given don't support that. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the article page of Ala Ghawas does not have reliable sources and is very promotional

(The article's sources)

1 - His own website? ( https://www.alaghawas.com/album/livefrommuharraq)

2 - This one is not even about him ( http://www.marhabafilbahrain.com/spotlight.html), it is very local

3 - This one is just a local magazine, and it is also an interview which is not very reliable ( https://www.timeoutabudhabi.com/nightlife/features/52523-ala-ghawas-breaking-out-of-bahrain)

(Promotional biased wording)

1- The release was received positively by the Bahraini media

2- (prestigious) concert hall of Shaikh Ebrahim Center in Muharraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noorn90 ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Gerald Koocher (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Gpkoocher ( talk · contribs)

The user Gpkoocher seems to have some issues with the article Gerald Koocher (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Specifically, the user says that, "Defamation litigation is pending.".

Sagecandor ( talk) 16:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that he doesn't say it's pending against us - the edit text says that it's pending against others. Still, might be an attempt to chill discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. But the article could use some more attention now. And it could use some cleanup. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And somehow, Gpkoocher has never gotten a COI notice. Fixed. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Karim Asir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can everyone look this over and see if I've made any mistakes in creating this biography of a living person? Bus stop ( talk) 21:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Bus stop: Thanks for your contributions. At this point, I would suggest you to add more references to the article so that it meets the BLP guidelines. It there is something that you couldn't find in the sources, please remove it. There links might be of help to you; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. KCVelaga ( talk) 05:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, KCVelaga. I will look over those links. I believe everything presently in the article is supported by the sources in the article. Bus stop ( talk) 06:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Bus stop: Yes, but adding inline citations is a best practice, especially for BLP articles. KCVelaga ( talk) 06:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @ Bus stop:. If I may make a suggestion: you can divide your article into sections like Early Life, Works, and Criticism if you have enough sources to expand on each. - Darwin Naz ( talk) 23:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Darwin Naz. That seems like a good suggestion. I have to take time to implement these improvements. I'm just satisfied that at this point I've gotten that article on Karim Asir up and running without encountering any major objections from other editors. Bus stop ( talk) 12:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Bus stop: Good luck. If you ever get it approved, I could find a way to contribute if your article needs it. Also thanks for your efforts. - Darwin Naz ( talk) 22:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Noah Schnapp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tried adding 2018 The Legend of Hallowaiian - Kai (voice) to [Noah Schnapp] but first time was reverted because Unsourced, unexplained. And IMDB is not a reliable source and also the same for the Official Movie site. So what is?

I saw on Wikipedia:Review aggregators that Rotten Tomatoes may be a reliable source but that's just for reviews. I've seen movie pages with literally just the movie page and IMDB as a source.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_legend_of_hallowaiian/

https://www.screendaily.com/news/mark-hamill-stranger-things-star-noah-schnapp-board-animation-hallowaiian-adventure-hawaii-exclusive/5128992.article

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/325119/kings-hawaiian-bows-animated-feature-film-voiced.html

Lildrewzy ( talk) 17:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it has to do with the movie article being a draft ( Draft:The Legend of Hallowaiian) and the movie still unreleased?-- Auric talk 22:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That may be true. But there are tons of movies that are put on actors bio before that actual completion and realease of the film. Someone added the film to a co-star of the film no problem so I don't know what is such the hassle.

What is the norm when a perpetrator has been acquitted for reason of insanity? I noticed that Murder of Christie Marceau is titled 'murder of' and calls the killing a murder but the only (and there's no dispute over this) perpetrator was acquitted for the aforementioned reason. Some NZ sources even after the acquittal still refer to murder [1] [2] but others just say 'killing' etc. And NZ sources tend to be fairly poor when it comes to emotive crime issues. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it's tricky. 'Killing of' or 'Death of' would be more suitable perhaps. Giant Snowman 10:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I would probably go with "killing of". This is similar to Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, where nobody has yet been convicted and the consensus in the RM established that name. In both cases they aren't identifiable as murders at this time.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 10:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

An admin locked in a number of BLP violations on the Mark Levin article. The BLP violations were introduced by an account created yesterday who has been edit-warring all day to (1) introduce these BLP violations, (2) remove all controversial/unflattering info about Levin, and (3) introduce lots of unsourced and poorly sourced promo and puffery about Levin. The text that is locked in on the Levin page currently suggests that there is credence to Levin's statements that Barack Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, and that there is credence to Levin's belief that Obama is "seeking to destroy Israel". I started both a talk page discussion on the article [3] and warned the new account about the edits [4], yet the editor kept re-introducing the BLP violations and the promo content, and by following BLP's explicit guidance that BLP violations must be removed "immediately", I repeatedly reverted the editor. The admin in question now suggests that I'm at risk of being blocked for edit-warring, and refuses to restore the long-standing BLP-vio-free version of Levin's article, unless you guys clarify that "Obama=terrorist sympathizer" and "Obama intervenes in Israeli elections" constitute BLP violations. [5] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's now been fixed. Never mind. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nnamdi Kanu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I ask for some more eyes on the Nnamdi Kanu article please. A recently registered editor keeps re-adding weakly sourced and presumably politically opinionated negative material about this living person. MPS1992 ( talk) 18:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I am watching it. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Australia: A Cultural History is actually by me, John (David) Rickard, historian and emeritus professor of history at Monash University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.171.200 ( talk) 08:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've removed it from the incorrect article. - Bilby ( talk) 08:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Will_Bouma

Hello, new to wiki editing.

I made and sourced some additional information for the Bouma entry but there was a correction made afterwards about how votes on individual bills shouldn't be included unless a separate article on the bill exists, however (and I'm not sure where the person who removed my additional entry resides, but the bill was a major news story here) the information is broadly referenced in other articles (such as this one /info/en/?search=Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Ontario )and I included outside news references to the information. References to this issue are all made in several other MPP's articles.

I'm new; so I don't want to get into a peeing match with anyone, just looking for some guidance as I do think the information is relevant to include but also recognize that I have a lot to learn stylistically.

Thoughts? Guidance?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsmythe ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems like it'd be helpful to provide a link to Better Local Government Act and name it as such. This actually is a bill that meets the requested notability standards, though it redirects to the 2018 Toronto Municipal Election Page. I've put it back for now because I concur it's notable, but I'd suggest you go to the talk page and talk with other editors about it. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot; it looks like other users have since gone in an undid what I wrote and removed my sources as well as your restoration; I'll just leave it for now to more experienced hands. Fsmythe ( talk) 00:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC) <

Can someone deal with this article? BLP hot mess. Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I cut everything but the lede in a blanket deletion. There were just too many court documents and opinion column pieces all jumbled together. (I may have tossed out one or two decent ones with the bathwater, but easier to add them back than to pick them out.) Considering she is only famous for 1 thing (and I use the term loosely here, because people are arrested and appear in the news everyday), which is criminal allegation, I would suggest sending the whole thing to AFD, or better yet, speedy delete per BLPCRIME. Does not seem to pass GNG and no indication of importance. (I'd nominate it myself by don't have the time.) Zaereth ( talk) 23:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It's at AfD now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Delvey.-- Auric talk 14:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Kindly be aware of a potential situation at [6] and [7], in which a purported family member of a no-longer-living person is changing information and making unencyclopedic, unsupported assertions regarding people who appear still to be alive (it's honestly a little hard to tell, and I don't have any more time to try to winkle out the truth; I apologize in advance if this ends up not being a BLP/N issue by virtue of everyone involved being dead, but I smell legal threats just over the horizon and wanted to raise a red flag somewhere). I am going to be very busy IRL today and unable to monitor or act on this myself. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well he definitely has a CoI - he's also brand spanking new and we should avoid WP:BITE so perhaps a friendly note that he needs to be aware of WP:COI is in order? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Could I get some eyeballs on this editor and this article? The editor has made a lot of edits to the article, with the first containing the edit summary "Thomas has stood down as Chairman, but remains founder. Alexander Shayler is now Chairman". The editor has made no other edits to any other articles. p b p 18:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ken Harbaugh reads like a professionally-written promotional piece, with lots of unsourced or weakly-sourced big claims and non-enyclopedic fluff. I did a couple quick, basic cleanup fixes, but would prefer leaving the rest to much more experienced editors who would have a lot more credibility making the type and amount of changes that I think will be necessary to make the article acceptable. Interestingly, the lead mentions Harbaugh running for Congress, yet there's not even a mention of it anywhere in the body. I Googled for more info and discovered he's the current Democratic nominee for his congressional district. So if anyone can help turn this advertisement into an encylopedia article, that would be great. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 ( talk) 14:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who did the great cleanup of the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, guys! In the edit summary of Dina Shihabi there are numerous cases of editors adding statements saying that Dina Shihabi is "Saudi American" even though no published sources say she's gotten U.S. citizenship, nor do these published sources describe her as "American". I have asked editors to provide references saying she got her citizenship but I was never given any. I am an admin but I am making this inquiry as I fear I would be in a conflict of interest if I used the admin tools myself.

Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What's up with the WP:SPA who only edits the Dina Shihabi and Samir Shihabi pages? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

...and who is edit warring and refusing to discuss... [8] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Quinta2#September 2018 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments are requested at Talk:Oscar López Rivera on issues relating to BLP policy. Thank you. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This person is unknown, she souldn't be on wikipedia. Her page is more a CV than something else and should be deleted from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.110.239.65 ( talk) 12:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NACADEMICS. The criteria for notability are different for published academics than they are for others, and this person meets the criteria. General Ization ^Talk 12:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any policy or guidance regarding how to deal with situations where a person claims a certain date of birth but multiple RS say otherwise? Drawab ( talk · contribs) - son of incumbent President of Pakistan Arif Alvi wants the DoB from his father's WP BLP be changed from 29 July to 29 August and is willing to provide identification document for verification purpose. Majority of multiple RS ( noted here) supports DoB 29 July 1949 but only a couple of RS states 29 August. Please advice. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:DOB. Black Kite (talk)
• Note you might have wiki contamination WP:CIRCULAR in some sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Black Kite: WP:DOB states Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources So If I'm interpreting it correctly, we should stick to 29 July. WP:DOB also states 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. In this case, the subject is not borderline notable. @ Icewhiz: OK but is there a way to determine which source mirrored us in this case? Most of the sources (that support 29 July) are quality and reputable sources. -- Saqib ( talk) 11:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

They might also be copying from one another. RS does not mean infalliable. If there is perhaps coverage, in a RS, of a bday celebration or some other more primary event related to his age it might be better than sources less likely to verify this trivial detail. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

29 August seems more reputable, was the original date given until you changed it in 2017 - was originally sourced to a statement by himself which I'd consider more reliable for DOB. For this kind of minor information incorrect information can often spread by sources copying from each other. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted but isn't verifiability trumps truth? According to Jimmy Wales, he was born on 8 August, however the infobox of his BLP states 7 August. By the way, insaf.pk is not a RS. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability does not trump truth; verifiability includes truth in its definition: to be verifiable means "to be able to be shown to be true". Statements which are not true are automatically not verifiable. Sure, someone can write false things, but those false things should not be used to "verify" a statement in Wikipedia, especially where other more reliable sources contradict them. -- Jayron 32 14:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

As the official website for the party it would be RS for the statement that Arif Alvi said that. Especially for BLPs I think we have a responsibility try to report the truth (and WP:V no longer says that) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I also saw a few sources reporting a 1947 DOB. I would roll with what the subject says, but footnote the other two (1947, July 1949), with references. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with other users who have pointed out that otherwise reliable sources are sometimes sloppy when it comes to details like dates of birth. For this kind of information, sources sometimes copy from each other and from us without the same level of fact-checking that they might use for other information. So unless there's reason to think the subject might be lying about his birthday or there's some other unusual situation, it makes sense to give precedence to sources that are closer to the subject or otherwise more likely to be right about this detail. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I am his son, and I would like to request his DOB be changed to 29th August 1949 - im willing to privately share a copy of his passport or if you still need more verification I'm willing to share his personal email address or someone can DM his verified twitter ID http://twitter.com/ArifAlvi for more personal verification - appreciate the effort from everyone here - Dr. Awab Alvi ( talk) 07:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Drawab: As I said, you do not need to upload any identification document or email address on-wiki. You can always use info@wikipedia.org for sharing confidential information. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Drawab: - A public source would be helpful and better than private sources. Assuming you are able to elicit a public tweet from your father (or if such a tweet was made in the past) - then a tweet containing his date of birth (and perhaps noting mistakes in the media about this) - would be a source we could use (this would be a primary sources - attributed to the subject himself - which would be a pretty good source for DOB). Icewhiz ( talk) 13:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the content of this version of the article. I would not like to be characterized this way. This looks more like tabloid journalism than encyclopedic content. Cannot properly evaluate the sources. This was restored after I protected because of disruption, and I don't want to take sides in the content dispute..-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, I think that that should be revdelled (per bit about dog and stupidity; vandalism starts at this revision), IMO wouldn't be taking sides in the dispute to remove such blatant BLP violating content, covered under WP:3RRNO among other exemptiosn.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 20:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I also believe it should be revdel'd, though sometimes my opinion is at variance with that of others.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 21:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Jean-François Gariépy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article about a controversial white nationalist YouTuber/neuroscientist was recently created. As though his YouTube videos weren't controversial enough he appears to currently be in some sort of custody dispute with his wife; eyes would be appreciated WRT whether sources in article are BLP compliant. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the list of sources, I'm not wondering if the article isn't eligible for an AFD nomination, for these reasons: 1) about 75% of the sources are to his own works, or to employers or organizations he is associated with (i.e. all sources that cannot be used to establish WP:GNG-compliance) and 2) of the remaining 25% of sources, they are mostly cited to The Daily Beast, which per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources is a source which is of case-by-case reliability, and is probably not much to hang an entire article on; the other few are cited to RawStory, which is of the same level of reliability as The Daily Beast, i.e. it ain't The Guardian or The New York Times. I'd be interested to see if anyone can dig up some traditionally and scrupulously reliable sources covering this person, if not I'm not sure there's enough evidence they are notable enough to support a stand-alone article. -- Jayron 32 02:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

it is cited that laura is anti-immigration. this is demonstrably false! laura is pro-immigration. however, laura is, also in fact, pro u.s. law and therefore feels that aliens wishing to take advantage of all this country has to offer must do so legally. if they do not they are illegal aliens. if the article stated that laura is anti-illegal-alien that would be closer to the truth, although not factual itself. if wikipedia is non-political then this entry needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.47.17 ( talk) 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Except that's a political objection... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"aliens" Simonm223 ( talk) 13:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help me with this article? There is a user who keeps restoring information that is either not sourced at all or is from a source that does not meet WP:RS. Thank you. BoogieWithStu ( talk) 18:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and will begin trimming. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 02:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! BoogieWithStu ( talk) 15:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like I spoke too soon. The user basically reverted all your edits. BoogieWithStu ( talk) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I restored my last version. We may need to take this issue to WP:AN3 if reverted again. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 16:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we get some more eyes on this, please? BoogieWithStu ( talk) 13:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We may need some rev/deletion of defamatory content and edit summary. 2601:188:180:1481:F1D3:A992:41FB:F56 ( talk) 02:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah appears to have already taken care of it. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 04:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Suicide of Katelyn Davis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person notable because of her suicide, should we use {{ Infobox event}} instead of {{ Infobox person}} there? Because this feels so wrong. Hddty. ( talk) 12:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I think it seems wrong. I think the tendency of the Infobox is to make suicide acceptable as an option to the vicissitudes of life for a 12-year-old girl, and I think it should be removed. I don't think any Infobox should be used there, Hddty. Let the reader read the article. Bus stop ( talk) 12:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be inclined to delete the article entirely... I understand why we don't, but the very existence of an article says "Hey, if you kill yourself and make a spectacle of it, the world will remember you with sympathy forever." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If anything, someone absolutely needs to nix about half of those sources (there's even a daily mail one) and replace with higher quality/non-first party ones. It was covered in mainstream sources, there's almost no reason to be using some of the sources given for this. -- Masem ( t) 14:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I kind of agree with MPants at work on this one that the existence of this article gives me a pretty serious discomfort. I don't know, however, if that discomfort is supported by WP policy. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on this conversation thus far I've made the following edit: [9]. Bus stop ( talk) 14:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Also we have inconsistency in similar article (search "prefix:suicide of") because some use {{ Infobox event}}, {{ Infobox person}} or no infobox at all. After seeing Suicide of Kurt Cobain I think we shouldn't even use infobox at all. There should be a consensus on the lead's first sentence for consistency. -- Hddty. ( talk) 14:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Consistency is good. Most of the pages in the /info/en/?search=Category:Bullycide category are titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", because they're properly about the event, instead of the person who probably wouldn't be considered notable if said event never happened. For example, the page Suicide of Kevin Whitrick (who also livestreamed his suicide, although his wasn't recorded and didn't go viral like Katelyn Davis' did) used to be called just Kevin Whitrick until it was renamed. Therefore, for these types of pages that exist, they should probably have {{ Infobox event}} instead of {{ Infobox person}}. Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 22:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the existence of the article is rather disconcerting. Perhaps we need a general discussion somewhere about whether we should have articles about otherwise non-notable people, especially children, who take their own lives, even when the suicide itself receives significant coverage. Neiltonks ( talk) 09:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What would be a good venue for this discussion? I like the idea of us NOT creating pages about otherwise non-notable minors who suffered a personal tragedy. Kind of like WP:BLP1E only applying to the recently deceased. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

About venues, if we want to suggest or discuss general Wikipedia policy for pages referencing children or tragic events, WP:PROPOSE tells where and how to do it. Discussion about improving the specific page Suicide of Katelyn Davis belongs on its talk page Talk:Suicide_of_Katelyn_Davis. Here is NOT the best place to discuss these things, because this page is intended for "reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons", which doesn't apply to Suicide of Katelyn Davis for two reasons: (1) That page is about the event and not the person, and so isn't a "biography" page. (2) The person who the event is about is deceased, and so isn't a "living person". Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 06:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is a key BLP issue here and that is , as the page is about the suicide and its impacts, it should not implicitly also be a BLP page. We do need to establish who Katelyn was, but the page should not try to build in a BLP due to the fact that we'd not have a standalone BLP for her per BLPCRIME/BLP1E. (And BLP does apply to the recently deceased, too, for about 6 months to two years after death, depending. That is to prevent immediate insertion of disparaging remarks about a person we'd not have included if they were living the moment they die). -- Masem ( t) 06:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What about the photograph Katelyn Nicole Davis ?-- Auric talk 11:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I 100% totally agree, Auric, the photograph is one of the worst aspects of our coverage of this topic. My removal of the Infobox has removed the photograph. I would argue that the photograph should not be re-added to the article even in the absence of an Infobox. I would not object to the photograph being deleted. Bus stop ( talk) 13:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Setting aside concerns for the message portrayed by the article, there is no justification I can think of to delete this. However, setting aside the interests of an encyclopedia, there is no justification I can think of to keep this.

Trying to balance out the two, the best state for the article I can think of is a massively over-cited stub.

Deleting the article, or even trimming it down to an acceptably-well-cited stub defeats our very purpose here, which is to inform the reader, who may have very good reasons for wanting to know about this tragedy, even to the point that becoming informed could help someone decide not to kill themselves. Yet too large and detailed of an article glorifies her death, which is just fucking awful and shouldn't require explanation as to why that's a Bad Thing.

I think a stub that gives an overview and the most important facts, along with tons and tons of citations for the reader to find out more is the best-case scenario. We can add a "further reading" and "See also" section to that end.

So what say you all reading here? Does the prospect of trimming this article down to the bare bones while leaving an overabundance of additional resources sound like a plan? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I think you're right that there's not currently a policy justification for deletion; and if we want to craft such a thing that's a separate issue from how to handle this article. Let's handle it as you suggested. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles on Wikipedia about underage suicide events. For example, see Suicide of Amanda Todd, Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael, Suicide of Dawn-Marie Wesley, Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, Suicide of Phoebe Prince, and others in /info/en/?search=Category:Bullycide, all of which have infoboxes and photos. Suicide of Katelyn Davis is already the shortest article. I don't think we should shorten it more (or even remove its photo) unless we also do the same for related events. Katelyn Davis is arguably the most notable of these and has had the most impact, since her death didn't just happen in private, but was and has been seen by numerous people. Katelyn's case is also of especial interest to psychologists and researchers of suicide prevention, since she also recorded and made available much of the last month of her life, allowing people to see the various causes that led to her death. I don't think a page about this event glorifies her death and suicide in general, any more than having a page about a notable murder glorifies crime. Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 17:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE applies here. Just because other pages need to be stubbed down doesn't mean that this one shouldn't be. Frankly I don't care if these pages glorify suicide. What worries me is that I don't believe the public good from having an encyclopedia article on this (which I find very minimal) outweighs the exacerbation of the undoubted personal tragedy that the family and friends of a minor who committed suicide might feel upon realizing that strangers on the world's fifth-largest website were dryly debating which pieces of information regarding the death were reliable and due. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My sense in what I had seen from sources is that this primarily got attention not because of the person, but that it was done live on social media and there was nothing authorities seemed to be able to do to stop the footage from being posted/kept on sites. While there is attention to why she chose to commit suicide, the stir seems to have been over what authorities wanted to do after the fact that makes it "notable" (but barely). -- Masem ( t) 17:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Katelyn Davis received heightened attention because she's a unique combination of two types of stories. (1) There's the "poor person bullied or abused until they kill themselves" type story, which often gets media attention for that alone, and which covers most of the pages in the /info/en/?search=Category:Bullycide category. (2) There's the "person livestreams their death so others can see it" type story which also gets attention, and which is much rarer but has happened before such as with Suicide of Kevin Whitrick. Katelyn Davis was both together, which resulted in viral attention and sharing of her videos (and not just of her death video). The "outpouring of support" mentioned in the Suicide of Katelyn Davis article isn't hyperbole. A quick Facebook search shows on the order of 40 different groups dedicated to her in various ways, such as seeking "Justice for Katelyn Nicole Davis". Yes, the non-stop viral spreading is one of the most obvious parts of the event, but as some writers indicate it's by no means the only one: https://psychcentral.com/blog/outrage-over-katelyn-nicole-davis-video-suicide-misses-the-point/ Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 22:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Some of the suicides in that category are far more notable. In those cases, the damage is already done. But I'm not at all opposed to giving other articles about just-barely- WP:NOTABLE suicides the same treatment. The rarity of this act -which was overstated somewhat above, as can be seen by the fact that we even have Category:Filmed suicides- does not contribute to it's notability. I would also note that I can personally think of multiple completely unrelated "live streamed" suicides that aren't notable enough for WP, including the suicide of a youtuber and 4chan user called Shuaiby just this past March.

Although I am concerned (obviously, per my first comment here) with the possibility of us "glorifying" suicide, I'm also concerned for the effect these articles have on the family of the victim. Our mission here is to inform, not to facilitate harassment, serve as a shrine to victims, or to document lurid details of a story that captures public interest. We can do that with a stub article and plenty of references. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. A WP:STUB article is what should be aimed for in this case. An abundance of references is also what is called for. Bus stop ( talk) 15:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand Suicide of Katelyn Davis and related articles may make some uncomfortable. However a stub article is not the Wikipedia sanctioned way to handle it. Remember that pages may contain "offensive material" to some people (see WP:OM). More significantly, according to WP:STUB, for stub articles "a stub template should be added to the article, if it does not already have one" and that "a stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". In other words stub articles should always be a temporary condition. Articles like this indeed shouldn't "glorify suicide" or be a "shrine to the victim", and if there's specific content that seems to be biased or emotional, instead of informative about the case (such as weasel wording, see WP:WEASEL) then that part should be edited. However simply removing informative content goes against WP:CENSOR. Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 17:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia sanctioned way to handle it". We're here to decide on how to handle it, and your references to WP:OM are completely out of the blue as no-one has mentioned being offended by anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To keep everybody up to pace, the photograph has been replaced and I've removed it. Bus stop ( talk) 19:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Update—it has been re-added to the article. Bus stop ( talk) 02:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that anybody is "offended" by this article, however it does appear that some people are "disturbed" by it. The reference to the "offensive material" page (see WP:OM) is to clarify that Wikipedia may contain content that some individuals don't like, but that alone isn't a reason to remove such content, because Wikipedia doesn't censor (see WP:NOTCENSORED). In other words, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable", although it's still true that "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies". The "Wikipedia sanctioned way to handle it" statement above is in reference to stub articles, which according to WP:STUB shouldn't exist for any extended period, and should "contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 05:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You say "Nobody's saying that anybody is 'offended' by this article" but aren't you contradicting that by also saying "Remember that pages may contain 'offensive material' to some people (see WP:OM)" and also by saying "The only reason to remove it seems to be based on discomfort with the article itself"? Bus stop ( talk) 07:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to argue against a strawman position and then try to use semantics to say that you weren't doing that. Logic doesn't work that way. Nobody here has suggested that offensiveness is a reason to remove content, so your argument against that position is void. What has been suggested here is that a long and detailed article might be actually damaging to some people, including the subject's family. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are factual and non-sensational. A truthful article regardless of its length is more likely to be appreciated by loved ones, or at least is no worse than the many articles about the case in mainstream media sources. People should be more disturbed by the actual suicide video itself which is still readily available on the internet, and the various other recordings Katelyn made in which she talks about physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zsblb10mmk Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 06:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment To the extent that this "article" might encourage others to emulate this person "and get their own Wikipedia article" I would rather think that BLP1E should extend to "attempts to gain notability which are intrinsically self-destructive" Collect ( talk) 12:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, although such a policy wouldn't apply to the Suicide of Katelyn Davis article. Katelyn wasn't "attempting to gain notability" by recording her death. Research of her case shows that she was bullied and had few friends, and was sharing online in the one place she felt accepted and not judged. Relatively few people saw her actual live broadcast. Other people made the event notable by copying her recording and sharing it virally, the media made the event notable by widely covering the case and its various issues and impacts, and the event gave social media online services the impetus to implement better reporting methods soon after, in order to detect people in the act faster and make it much harder for others to actually do things like this today. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Update. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Davis has been deleted. I think that a problem remains concerning images in the articles in Category:Bullycide. I think the images should be removed. I believe Cruiser1 is saying in reference to these articles that "Wikipedia articles are factual and non-sensational" and that the articles in Category:Bullycide are "properly about the event, instead of the person". I think the images contribute to any sensational element. And if the articles are about the "event" I think there is less justification for the inclusion of these images. Bus stop ( talk) 03:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

If the images are free, that's less a problem; its the non-free ones just to show who the person is is both likely against BLP and NFC. -- Masem ( t) 03:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

These are grim sorts of articles. There is no need to "show who the person is". Bus stop ( talk) 08:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Given all the above about these types of articles, the use of a non-free image clearly would be inappropriate under NFCC#8; these are not bios, so an image of the person isn't necessary; it does lend to give them more "celebrity" aspects (something argued against above). But if there are free images of the person (and hopefully, existed before their suicide/etc.), there's very little room to argue against their use. I can see the issue if free images became available after the death, as part of the sensationalism issue aspect that we might potentially have a means to say that they shouldn't be used, but an existing free image of the person before their suicide, made free well before the suicide.... I cannot see any means to prevent that type of use, certainly nothing under any P&G and more broadly from a general editorial standpoint. As long as the article stays away from being a bio and focuses on the discussion around the suicide. -- Masem ( t) 13:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What scenario would result in "an existing free image of the person before their suicide"? These are non-notable people. We are writing articles on the basis that they were young and they committed suicide. I would argue that we are increasing sensationalism by including images. Young, smiling faces are incongruous with suicide. This is where the sensationalism is created. If our purpose is documenting the "event" then that is accomplished by detailing the facts of the event, not by the evocative qualities of the human face. It is not as if the images fill in facts that we need to know. There is no need to depict happiness or youth. It is important to look at the images in Category:Bullycide. They are almost always smiling and young. These aren't photos that shed light on possible causes of suicide. We cannot peer into their inner psyches. Their raison d'être is incongruity. Bus stop ( talk) 13:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As MPants points out, people might regularly publish their personal photos onto a site like flickr with the proper free license, so that potentially exists. It's not very likely (if people publish their personal photos it is without a free license eg via instagram, etc.) but that potentially exists. That's where I do think we could put our foot down on a free image that is made free (or published) after the suicide because that is part of sensationalism, but if the image was already there before the suicide, I can't see a way to block its use by any policy or other factors. -- Masem ( t) 14:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I agree with Masem, though it's worth pointing out that it's highly unlikely that free images of a private individual exist unless that individual published photos to a site that applies a free license to them, such as flickr. Photos from Facebook are not free images, nor are instagram photos. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure there's nothing in the Facebook or Instagram T&C that that prevent someone releasing their images under a free licence. Both sites require you licence them so the site themselves can use them in certain ways, but they don't stop you additionally licencing them in other ways. Remember also that free licences aren't the only licences allowed by Flickr, although they do at least get you to specify a clear licence. But both Instagram and Facebook do have image details as well as a comment space where people would be able to licence their images freely. (Plus profile pages where people could do it for all images they created and released on their Facebook or Instagram.) In other words, while it would be fairly stupid to look on Instagram or Facebook for freely licenced images since almost no one does that, you could obtain a freely licenced image from Facebook or Instagram if the copyright owner clearly licenced their image in that way there. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies for the late response) No, there isn't. But as you said, people generally don't do that. I'm pretty much entirely on board with everything you said there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Rohmir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph Mifsud (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The exact same content is being added to both of these articles. There appears to be speculation going on along with content that implies illegal acts are happening. Can someone look at the content I have removed to see if they agree with my evaluation? ~ GB fan 12:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with your actions. There is probably even more to remove from the Joseph Mifsud article, which seems like working really hard to become an all-encompassing conspiracy theory. I especially liked the line you removed about the clothes Theresa May wore, clearly a devious plot there. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Feels like it's not from a neutral pov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.217.88 ( talk • contribs)

It would be good it you could specify what is not neutral about it. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is because Jeff Flake has just been given a bollocking in an elevator and is on the news. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This really isn't the proper spot. The only edit to the article talk page in the last year was a question not really about Flake. Take any concerns, with specifics, first to the article talk --> Talk:Jeff_Flake. O3000 ( talk) 15:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nahshon Dion Anderson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has a section on an assault on Anderson and the person charged. That person was acquitted of the assault but was later convicted of other charges in an unrelated matter. I've rephrased and removed some information from that section but would appreciate some extra review of the changes. Thank you. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support your edits there. Govindaharihari ( talk) 18:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Mariam Memarsadeghi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran has changed this page to incorrectly say I am advocating for war and foreign invasion of Iran. This is false and defamatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.178.119 ( talk • contribs)

reverted back to a historic npov state. Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering how frequently Memarsadeghi has been in the press supporting Trump's (arguably warmongering) policies regarding Iran, I think it's not necessarily the case those edits were put in place by agents of Iran. While these particular edits weren't well supported by reliable sources, and while Govindaharihari was right to revert them, the page isn't exactly in a perfect state of WP:NPOV as it stands either. As is often the case with politically divisive figures whose position meshes with that of American hegemony, it's something of a white-wash. And I'll point out that accusing other Wikipedians of being foreign state actors executing an agenda against a politically divisive advocate would constitute a failure of WP:AGF and WP:NPA so I'll very gently caution 96.255.178.119 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) to avoid personal attacks. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Is a "deputy campaign manager" who pleaded guilty in a corruption case notable? Apparently he was a key player in the corruption scandal surrounding Illinois gov. Ryan and a willing participant ( this is an editorial, but there's plenty of other sourcing available), but was given only probation, basically, cause he sang to investigators. He wouldn't be notable without the corruption, of course. Anyway, I appreciate y'all's opinion on this--there's an editor who claims to be concerned, as you can see in the history. One option is to merge that content into George_Ryan#Scandals,_trial,_and_conviction, but a question is whether we leave a redirect or not. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless his "singing" is well-known as soprano, contralto, barritone, etc.; I don't see notability. Merge, I lean against a redirect. O3000 ( talk) 21:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I found a little usable information about him and his career, but not enough to justify an article, in my opinion. Placing what I found here: undated "40 under 40" from early in his career; Chicago Tribune, his role in the scandal, plus his job in the Bush administration from which he resigned, but before the legal investigation and prosecutions were complete; university newspaper, but has the end of the story. I will boldly redirect it, and not mention him at the redirect target. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Frank Caprio (judge) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Early Life and Career sections have no sources, and read rather spinny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.220.207 ( talk) 22:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Charles Hurt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sourcing of this article is differently wonderful. Example: states the identity of his parents sourced to an engagement notice for probably those very people, but with no link at all to him. He's a "journalist" for the Moonie-owned Washington Times, I can't help feeling this is not into WP:GNG territory. Guy ( Help!) 21:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies up front if this is not the right place to ask this. I was directed here by Bbb23 as he thought this would be the best place. A discussion has been ongoing in the Talk:Turning Point USA page since last January regarding merging the article on Charlie Kirk (activist) into the Turning Point USA article. Originally, with only 2 people discussing it, they made the decision to merge the two articles and the articles have remained merged ever since. There are voices now that believe it should be two separate articles. I'm not asking for that discussion to take place here, but rather, asking that someone with more knowledge of WP policies on the matters of BLP and Notability could join the conversation there. We are not reaching a concensus and I believe someone here might know the right things to say to lead to a concensus. Asking for help, please. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 14:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The noted French singer is deceased today and we are already beginning to get drive-by IP vandalism. Please watchlist this. Coretheapple ( talk) 03:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Pete Mckee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NOT NOTABLE OR NOTEWORTHY

This entry is for an illustrator who only has a limited and very local appeal in his local area Some links to his own website His "Gallery" is a small shop on a side street. Exhibitions referred to have no links or proof that they were of any significance. Chiefly Original Research (OR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Rusling ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC) BBC items are archived links to local radio website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Rusling ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• There is a bit of puffery in the article, but as far as I can see, not much OR. National coverage -The Guardian has an in depth article on him; the BBC (and not just the local version) have short articles on several of his exhibitions, and NME have run two galleries on his music industry inspired works. Plenty of local coverage as well. Looks like enough to meet WP:GNG. Curdle ( talk) 15:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Bill Rusling: feel free to nominate the article for deletion using WP:AFD if you believe it is not notable. Giant Snowman 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Golriz Ghahraman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article contains a controversies section based on primary sources stuff.co.nz (which appears to be tabloidesque) and Radio New Zealand (which is a state-sponsored channel). Prima facie, the content in the section appears to be well-balanced, however the attention given to this particular issue is likely WP:UNDUE, and the existence of the controversies section itself is not conducive to a balanced, NPOV article. I'd like to hear your thoughts before I set about editing the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Stuff is the combined web site of the Fairfax newspapers (including the second and third major papers in the country) and is about as reliable as any other mass-market newspaper (they went to tabloid size recently, but the weekend papers are still broadsheet and the content isn't excessively tabloid). RNZ is a neutral public broadcaster (not comparable with propaganda outfits such as RT). However Stuff (in particular) also prints opinion pieces which aren't anywhere near the reliability of their news coverage. Most of the controversy is about her volunteer work and is written by people who don't understand even basic legal processes and is typically only repeated in reliable sources as claims and rebuttal. I agree that the coverage given to the issue in this article is WP:UNDUE. Daveosaurus ( talk) 04:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the sourcing: Radio New Zealand is a very reliable source and stuff.co.nz is as well (as Daveosaurus notes). I find it concerning when people impugn the integrity of prominent mainstream sources they've got no understanding of whatsoever ("state-sponsored channel"? really?). This is a Bad Thing and people should do their homework if they're going to throw these claims around. I do agree that it is undue weight: I don't think the second paragraph adds anything significant that isn't conveyed by the first. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically, it is a state-sponsored channel in the sense that it is a "public-service radio broadcaster" and a "Crown entity". This is not a value-laden judgement. Additionally, having "controversies" or "criticism" sections on biographies of living people is highly discouraged as these sections tend to become troll magnets.

I do agree with Daveosaurus's observation above that these news articles cited as sources have been written by individuals who do not appear to have even rudimentary understanding of basic legal processes, and the ethical framework in which legal counsel participate in judicial proceedings. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion that this has any bearing whatsoever on its validity as a source is a value-laden judgment (and a bad one). I'd also suggest that people refrain from trying to dismiss obvious reliable sources because they come to some conclusions they dislike: I'm a fan of Ghahraman, have done my share of pruning crap from this article over time, and am well familiar with legal ethics in criminal defence and even I can see it's a weakness in her biography. The implication that volunteering on a war crimes defence as an intern is beyond question by reasonable sources (or that criticism suggests anything about their "understanding of basic legal processes") is POV nonsense that doesn't stand up to scrutiny from people who do, in fact, understand these things. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversies sections are inherently biased and should not be in articles. Instead the controversy should be incorporated into the sections of the article about where they arose. In this case, instead of saying, "In November 2017, it was revealed that, along with prosecuting war criminals, Ghahraman had also volunteered as an intern for the legal defence team of accused war criminals, " (note the tabloidesque language) it could say, she "volunteered as an intern for the legal defence team of accused war criminals." Being a defense lawyer is not illegal or unethical in itself. This could then be followed by criticism of her choice and her response. TFD ( talk) 18:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks, could someone take a look at the article on Peter Mathieson (nephrologist)? My feeling is it's not balanced and some editorial judgement is needed. For instance there's a quote in there from Lo Chung-mau which I'm not sure is adding much and is repeating an ad hominem attack without context. Richard Nevell ( talk) 19:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Recently, there was a strike in Aiims as he assaulted a fellow doctor and RDA demanded his resignation, Relevant changes should be made to make a honest and truthful biographical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.250.233 ( talk) 03:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Three years ago I requested a third opinion on Talk:David M. Cote, and received what I felt was a very well-thought out and measured response. I've since been unable to gain any real traction with implementing the necessary changes (in part due to my COI). I later requested mediation between the editor who added the content that I felt was unsuitable and myself, but he rejected that request. Another editor removed the content entirely, but it was later restored. I requested an edit to move the content to Honeywell instead, by that request was deferred with the placement of a split and merge template. At this point I'd just like to reach a real consensus on the issue. Is it appropriate to include material regarding a company's political donations under a CEO's tenure on his BLP? It seems to me that it unfairly implies that the CEO was directly responsible for the rise in political donations.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 01:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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

To whom it may concern,

My name is Simon Hussey,

I am the subject in the page Simon Hussey Australian Musician.

It has been bought to my attention by authorities that do checks validity of work history, for example, trying to rent accomodation in Australia is difficult as the wikipedia page, to them suggests I am of dubious character due to some page warning.

I never asked to have my career on here and I am a sufferer of long term Mental health issues which have forced me to stop work.

Could someone please address the page issues or delete it. I don't understand why I have to be the victim.

Thank you so much.

Simon Hussey,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.111.14 ( talk) 01:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you believe there are inaccuracies on the page about you? Simonm223 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think he'd like to get rid of the "A major contributor to this article..." template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the editor involved in the CoI argument was highly active on the page as recently as a month ago, that'd probably be unwise for the moment. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

All of the above may be true, but it seems this living person may be asking for the article to be taken down completely since it is hurting his career. Shouldn't this be a candidate for speedy deletion? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 01:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Under certain circumstances, especially where the subject is not really notable, that may be an acceptable reason, but usually not. Much easier for the writer to get something deleted that way than the subject. Now don't get me wrong, because I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy, but in this case I think he's notable enough to have his article pass AFD. Some of the sources seem dubious, but I haven't gone through them to know that for sure. You're welcome to trim it up and try nominating it, but I'd carefully assess it first to see if it has a snowball's chance of getting deleted.

It might help if they could clarify as to what exactly the problem is. The article to me seem quite neutral; ie: no overtly boisterous statements and yet nothing that seems disparaging either. The original post seems to indicate that the template notice is the point of contention, but this doesn't say that he himself is somehow a bad person, only that some Wikipedian thinks the article itself may be the product of a little COI editing, which may or may not even be the subject (tag doesn't specify, and is duly ambiguous). I can't imagine this would hurt someone's career, but we need more info from the OP. (Keeping in mind that the OP may not always be who they say they are, but giving the benefit of the doubt unless/until it becomes a problem.) Zaereth ( talk) 01:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the article a number of times over the years. At least two editors have claimed to have a connection with the subject. Many of their edits are disruptive and provide a reason for adding the CoI template. I've had to revert those changes and fix up content problems. Other editors have also made similar reversions. Much of this is detailed at the article's talkpage. I am heartily sorry if Simon Hussey is being denied accommodation by authorities doing checks and using the WP page as a rationale for disruption to his life. He certainly should not be a victim. I believe Australian governmental agencies have mechanisms to reduce such problems. However, I don't believe removal of the whole article would help. The subject is certainly notable enough to have an article and there are sufficient reliable sources to verify their notability. I would welcome any copy editing to reduce CoI or other issues to improve the article. The template could then be removed if the disruptive editors (or their ilk) refrain from further interruption with the article. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 04:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm concerned: someone keeps editing Menkes page to read that 'she donated' her films to the Academy. As though any person can send their video to the Academy and the Academy will create a formal Collection. This edit obviates the very important fact that the Academy is AN ESTEEMED CURATORIAL INSTITUTION which has SELECTED Menkes' work, to INCLUDE IT IN THE CANON. Continually re-editing this page denigrates the status of Menkes' work and erases the reception it has received. Given the extreme under-representation of female artists on Wikipedia, please DO NOT ALLOW the continued erasure of Menkes' achievements. thank you, Miss Wagular — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagular2018 ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"The Archive's collection comprises 85,000 titles" ... ? Anyways, I have changed the wording and watchlisted the page. MPS1992 ( talk) 01:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992, a few comments: Wagular2018 is indeffed as a sockpuppet; the Nina Menkes page has a long and tedious history of people trying to remove referenced content, even though it was originally created by User:Nina Menkes (which makes "please DO NOT ALLOW the continued erasure of Menkes' achievements" a particularly bizarre request); and the oscars.org page on the Nina Menkes Collection specifically states that the films came from her. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody please update the POB in the infobox per my request at the article talk page? Giant Snowman 14:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman; The article was changed to use local infobox now. You could've just done so. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Ammarpad: I wasn't sure if there was a reason it used the Wikidata infobox. Giant Snowman 07:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion : Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics Nil Einne ( talk) 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Peter Oxford there is a notice at the top of this page can a volunteer please have this removed please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.142.92 ( talk) 09:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Not unless the concerns in the note are satisfied. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not immediately obvious why @ Rentier: placed the tag on this page; there was no note left on the article talk page, nor the article creator's talk page, and the edit summary indicates nothing beyond the fact that the tag was added. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Then there are no concerns to satisfy, and any editor should feel free to remove the hat note. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle has come up for AfD. I am not fully cognisant of the different expectations for editing, so would be grateful if anyone could go and improve on my edits to the article. Noting that WP:DEL-CONTENT states, 'If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page,' I was wondering if someone more adept with Wikipedia than me could improve the article to acceptable standards, if appropriate. Thank you. 82.129.81.98 ( talk) 23:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the problem in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.172.186 ( talk) 13:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What issue are reporting? Its not clear. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 00:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I cannot make heads or tails of this quote, which I removed. If an admin is reading this, perhaps they can revdel it? I do not see the purpose of a quote on scratching asses and looking up skirts. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be revdelled as it doesn't meet the criteria. And it's verifiable in the source, even though the citation was malformed (original source is here). But thank you for removing it, as it's clearly not appropriate. I don't think even with an article on the commando-going artist in question, that this would ever rise to the level of being WP:DUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

thank you for the excellent answer! ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot of animus and some fairly contentious editing going on at Graham Linehan. Apparently the guy has made some politically incorrect statements and well-meaning editors are conflating someone reporting him to the cops with being charged, having legal problems etc., and it has found its way in to the article and talk page a few times with flimsy sourcing (opinion pages, etc.). It appears that some off-wiki WP:STEALTH is going on too based on the sudden appearance of uninvolved editors with limited WP experience. Additional eyes appreciated. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

....but are they using RS? Can the content they add be improved? (per WP:PRESERVE) -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 18:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

While there are a lot of problematic edits, This source isn't an opinion piece, and including that he was reported to the police doesn't seem inherently a WP:BLP problem. I also found this piece in The Times, which is about this incident and includes that he was reported to the police; one sentence per WP:PUBLICFIGURE on this incident/kerfuffle would seem non-problematic vis-a-vis WP:BLP to me. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added his views with the times as a source. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"Made some politically incorrect statements," is down-playing the extent of what Linehan has been up to; he's basically got to the point where most of his online persona consists of mis-gendering transwomen. That said, it looks like the page itself is currently in decent shape from a casual check. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI Jytdog ( talk) 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog ( talk) 15:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Want to float this idea here first, to see if this may be a perennial proposal that's already been discussed.

• Would it make sense to permanently protect BLPs upon request as a matter of fact?

The latest story that is relevant is "Someone in the House Just Doxxed a Bunch of Republican Senators on Wikipedia", which discusses how an IP address added personal contact information, including cell phones and home addresses, to the pages of several US senators. The article mentions a Twitter bot that tweets the changes as they happen. The account (@congressedits) also tweets a screen grab of the change. In this particular case, the edits were quickly suppressed on Wikipedia, but it took some time for Twitter to delete the pictures, so when I read the article, they were still there.

In general, BLPs attract a lot of vandalism, some of which is "weaponised", intended to doxx or embarrass the victim. With that in mind, I'd like to find out if default or on-demand permanent protection for BLP articles is worth discussing. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, it appears that this was discussed and rejected on WP:VPR at least once (in January 2010): [10] IntoThinAir talk 19:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It would cut down on a lot of the vandalism and SPA edits without a doubt. There are others who believe this would disrupt the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" model, in that it would deter those good-intentioned IP editors from editing at all, but I tend to think the benefits would far outweigh the disadvantages. False or libelous info, even if only posted for a short time, can have very adverse effects on not only our subjects but their friends and families as well, and I think it's better to err on the side of caution, but that's just me. Who knows, it may even encourage many of those well-meaning IPs to open an account. Zaereth ( talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I would also wholeheartedly support this idea. IntoThinAir talk 23:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW Me too. Also, what Zaereth said. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. It contains a basic flaw that many similar proposals share; it assumes that vandals, POV pushers, and trolls are too stupid to react to our countermeasures with counter-countermeasures of their own. This is known in security circles as "installing a pickproof deadbolt on a cardboard box". When proposing any countermeasure, you need to present an argument that a simple behavior change won't bypass the new countermeasure.

Example: some new countermeasure automatically prevents a new editor from vandalizing Donald Trump. So he vandalizes President of the United States, The Trump Organization, The Apprentice (U.S. TV series), and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. We apply the countermeasure to those pages and the vandal reacts by vandalizing Donald Trump in popular culture, Mar-a-Lago, Russia–United States relations, and United States presidential election, 2016. All we have accomplished is starting an arms race that we cannot win.

Our current methods of protecting BLPs are not broken and do not need to be fixed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Seconding Guy Macon on this. Default protection is not going to help. -- The Anome ( talk) 06:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems very reminiscent of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument often used by opponents of gun control. Both the above arguments and the anti-gun control argument appear to be motivated by a pessimistic belief that attempting to make it harder for people who shouldn't be able to do things to do them will be futile (whether those things are editing a BLP or obtaining a gun). But I think that such efforts are not necessarily futile: in the case of Wikipedia BLPs, making it more difficult for vandals/trolls/other unconstructive editors to violate BLP policy is a good thing and will undoubtedly prevent some (but certainly not all) such editors from making problematic edits to our most sensitive pages. I think that some, but not all, such editors will be sufficiently dedicated and resourceful to know how to become autoconfirmed, or edit non-BLPs, etc. but the remaining editors will be prevented from making BLP-violating edits. IntoThinAir ( talk) 13:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)This seems very reminiscent of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument often used by opponents of gun control. While I agree that taking steps to mitigate harm doesn't require that each step be a foolproof solution, we also have to bear in mind that each new mechanism adds a layer of difficulty, and brings problems of its own.

In other words, I don't think Guy is saying that the proposal need be perfect, but rather that the proposer needs to make a compelling case that implementing it is better than doing nothing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and I appreciate the clarification on Guy's behalf. In some sense this proposal would start an "arms race" that can never be won. But I would argue that this "arms race" has already been happening, and that this proposal is merely a common-sense step to try to fight back in said arms race against any editor intent on violating BLP. Recall that after the Siegenthaler incident in 2005 Wikipedia (at least this one) required users to be logged in to create articles. To my mind this proposal would, similar to the logged-in article requirement, be an entirely reasonable way of enforcing one of our most important policies (though I would also be OK with putting all BLPs under PC1 rather than semi-protection as a compromise). IntoThinAir ( talk) 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I could see an argument for using some sort of semi protection, like EC protection or even semi. But I don't think I'd find those arguments compelling, because I've seen far more good edits from IPs and new editors at BLPs than I've seen problematic ones. When I do recent changes patrolling, I accept probably 70% of the edits on a typical bad day. A good day can hit 100% without too much difficulty. (To be fair, I've had really bad days that dip as low as 20-30%, but I've never had a zero percent day). I've seen IPs reverting cleverly hidden vandalism, subtle BLP vios and balancing out POV problems. And yes, I've seen a lot of vandalism, too. But the harm (blocking all IPs and new editors from editing BLPs) seems to outweigh the good. Remember, every good revert from an IP is a revert we registered users don't have to make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion is at least a little bit related to WP:PERENNIAL#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose this, per WP:NOTFINISHED. I could see some sense in automatically semiprotecting all BLPs because of the potential for harm, but the reality is that there are thousands of BLPs that are just fine without protection, and we've protected the ones where there are problems (or we will when the problems become evident). Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 13:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm against this, too. Many BLPs are never vandalized, and protection of these is unnecessary. The vandalism tends to be concentrated on BLPs of controversial individuals and this can be managed. I'm not sure which level of protection we could apply, anyway, as there needs to be a mechanism to allow BLP articles to be improved - we can't just freeze them at the initial version. Semi-protection thwarts drive-by vandals but the more determined ones just have to wait a few days and make a few innocuous edits until they're autoconfirmed and semi achieves nothing. Placing pending changes protection on all BLPs would put a huge workload on the pending changes reviewers, while full protection would give the admins that workload. We can't have a relatively few editors having to vet or implement every change to every BLP, surely? That just leaves extended-confirmed, which might work to some extent but would still prevent a lot of less-experienced editors making what would be perfectly uncontroversial edits. Neiltonks ( talk) 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Automatically semi-protecting BLPs, in particular high-profile BLPs in contentious areas would be a boon. I spend a good share of my editing on manually reverting completely useless edits made by IP numbers on BLPs. I worry about the harm that these editors are doing to pages that are not being patrolled by regular editors. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I live and mostly work in a WP area (The United Arab Emirates) that is little loved by experienced WP editors and much loved by IP drive-bys. The casual, daft vandalism is endemic - and requiring autoconfirmed user status to modify a BLP would be helpful. I understand that's not everyone's cup of tea. But it's mine... :) Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am against this for obvious reasons. But, seriously, permanent protection, no (or few) questions asked, potentially applied as a matter of policy to how many millions of articles, all in response to a single event that was caught and responded to rapidly and appropriately? That would be a huge overreaction, and would also inevitably create a mess in the future. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Protecting all BLPs by default would be excessive, but the proposal is to protect BLPs upon request. We should set a very low bar for on-demand protection of BLPs that may be subject to vandalism due to current events or controversies. Although there are good reasons that we don't normally do this preemptively, doxxing has the potential to make information public in the way that can't be undone and it's troubling that Wikipedia may be co-opted for this purpose. – dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• For the record the doxxing also occurred on non-BLP articles. So in terms of the recent incident, this wouldn't necessarily improve anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Correct, I had permanent protection on request in mind, rather than by default. I'll think of an appropriate RfC question as the next step. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ebi

Reasons: (1) Sources 1, 3, and 5 are self-published. 1 & 3 are references to self-published website. Source 5 is cited in reference to a self-represented statement during an interview. All lines cited by these materials should be removed;

(2) The entirety of the introductory paragraph is uncited and contains contentious facts or self-representations. "Ebrahim Hamedi (Persian: ابراهیم حامدی), better known by his stage name Ebi (ابی), is an Iranian singer. He is nicknamed as "master of voice" (آقای صدا) by his fans. He achieved the pinnacle of his fame and success towards the end of the 1970s. His overall impact and contributions to Iranian pop music made him one of the two iconic male pop singers in the Persian speaking world next to Dariush." These are items of self-puffery and strongly contested/without citation;

(3) This section has no citations either: "Throughout his 50-year career, Ebi has released over 20 albums, close to 100 singles, and performed shows across the world. He lives in Marbella, Spain, even though he also spends time in Los Angeles. Ebi has three daughters from his previous marriage, and a stepson from his current wife."

The entire biography is self-constructed and lacks proper citations throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.242.142 ( talk) 04:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The proper place to do this is at the article's talk page, not here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Eva Bartlett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article states that she id known "for promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos."

That is a contested statement, to put it mildly. By normal BLP standards that should go, we shouldn't let Wikipedia be used for possible slander, Huldra ( talk) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Which part of this is contested? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The information seems well sourced, at least to the Guardian, but the language itself seems biased. The phrase "she is known for promoting the falsehood" implies that there is a truth-hood, eg: a conclusion we are making for the reader. For neutrality, I would change it to "she is known for her claims ... the facts of which have been debunked by ...", which is what the source actually says.

On that note, this seems to be a case of a person who gained 15 minutes of fame by a single blog, so I'm not sure if that passes the bar for notability. Zaereth ( talk) 22:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eva_Bartlett - strongly kept - Govindaharihari ( talk) 07:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree the statement of truth needs to go, (the bit - known "for promoting the falsehood" - there is a lot of doubt and concerns in press reports concerning the white helmets connection to terrorism and we should not be reporting that is a falsehood when there are multiple reports doubting that "truth" - here is the first time the claim of truth was added, [11] by User:Snooganssnoogans The user Snooganssnoogans has repeatedly replaced "falsehood" as if a statement of fact six times after that when it was repeatedly removed, I also note the user while repeatedly replacing disputed content to a BLP has not left a single comment regarding it on the article talkpage. I will also add that this is a WP:BLP and there is a fair amount of attack content imho - to quote User:Snooganssnoogans "Just to be clear: I wrote pretty much the whole article." The content presents imo as negative a portrayal of the sources as possible in total violation of one of the three core principal policies of this project WP:NPOV - Govindaharihari ( talk) 05:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Truth is poor phrasing. However, actual RS coverage of Bartlett has mainly focused on her writing in support of the Assad regime and make statements considered as false by RSes - e.g. this detailed fact check, this detailed fact check, and secondary coverage here. Coverage of her promotion of pro-Syria propaganda - [12] [13]. The appropriate policy to consider here is WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV - we call a spade a spade when it is treated in this manner by RSes. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  to be clear User:Icewhiz are you supporting the wording " "for promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos." Govindaharihari ( talk) 07:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I am - the recycling claim was debunked in depth by Snopes and Channel-4 - both of which are referred to by other sources - e.g newstatesman - Beeley’s long-time associate Eva Bartlett has also received significant promotion by the Kremlin. Bartlett shares the same recycled propaganda lines as Beeley, claiming that child victims of Assad’s war crimes are crisis actors. Channel 4 News thoroughly debunked her baseless and offensive claims. The Assad regime's representative at the UN Bashar al-Jaafari provided further proof of Bartlett and Beeley's proximity to the regime in an interview declaring his “love” for them. [14], or WaPo - RT’s real coup, however, was a presentation at the United Nations by the “independent Canadian journalist” Eva Bartlett, in which she claimed that there were no White Helmets in Aleppo, that the White Helmets were terrorists, and that they recycled children in their rescue videos. RT’s “In the Now” edited out the more fatuous parts of her presentation and turned the video into a viral hit. Bartlett, however, is no journalist. She is a contributor to conspiracy sites like SOTT.net, the Duran and Global Research. She wears an “I ♥ Bashar” bracelet and had recently returned from a regime-chaperoned tour of Aleppo. Her presentation was organized by the regime’s mission at the U.N. But despite the absurdity of her claims, the diffusion of the propaganda forced serious journalists to waste time debunking her. [15]. Bartlett is mainly known for being promoted by the Kremlin's propaganda outlet RT (TV network) - and coverage of her in RSes has focused on various claims (false or propaganda she has made therein - the "recycling children" one being the most prominent. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  The statement presented as a fact is a total violation of all wikipedias core policies. IMO any user inserting it or supporting it deserves a WP:BLP editing restriction Govindaharihari ( talk) 08:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Govindaharihari ( talk) 08:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Are you claiming that the Washington Post and New Statesman are not reliable sources? Shritwod ( talk) 08:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  That's not a way to engender discussion - and one might cite WP:PROFRINGE. Are there any actual WP:RSes (no - RT would not count as one) treating this in a manner other than falsehood ? If there are, then we should reflect the disagreement between sources. However - if all RSes we know of say X, then we generally say X as well. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  The original version - before it was changed to the current version - is clearly no good here. "She is known for ... claiming that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos" followed by "Bartlett's claims were verified by Syrians she interviewed but said to be false by Channel 4 News and Snopes." give the reader an indication that both Bartlett and the news agencies have equally credible claims. In reality, there's clearly not any doubt that Bartlett is peddling false stories; the only discussion is how it should be phrased. I actually don't have much objection to the "falsehood" wording, because the RSs clearly demonstrate that they are falsehoods. However, one could phrase it something like "She is known for her advocacy in support of the Assad regime. She has claimed that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos, claims which have been comprehensively proved false by numerous news services". Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I stand entirely by the language in the article. It reflects the reliable sources, and is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. In fact, I repeatedly asked detractors in the AfD to substantiate that there was a disagreement between reliable sources, so that the language could be updated to reflect that disagreement. I got absolutely nothing. The desire to change the language, so that it no longer reflects what RS say (e.g. describing falsehoods as a disagreement between Bartlett and a news outlet) is WP:WEASEL, or give equal weight to the conspiracy theorist's unfounded assertions and those of RS is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

My objection to this phrasing has little to do with policy but more with the practices of good writing. As counterintuitively as it may sound, I try to look at these articles as if they were not BLPs but any other article, such as a scientific one, historical, or a technical article. There is a basic principle in writing, "show; don't tell". What this means is that readers like to be shown the story, not have it relayed by an author using periphrastic words and phrases, and they most certainly don't like being told how they should interpret a story. Don't give me your conclusion that they are falsehoods; show me. That is what the source does, and is what makes it reliable.

This does three things: 1.) It keeps the reader interested by engaging them in the process. 2.) It gives actual information rather than euphemisms, and as a result 3.) it makes the writing more believable. For more info, I strongly recommend On Writing Well: The Classical Guide to Writing Nonfiction by William Zinnser, or Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills. (It's not surprising how both fields rely on exactly the same principles.) Zaereth ( talk) 18:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

In She is known for her advocacy in support of the Assad regime, and for promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos. the language used gives hint of criticalness in WP's voice ("promoting the falsehood"). We have the step back just a bit. A better way to say this staying true to sources would be She is known for her advocacy in support of the Assad regime, and for claiming that White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos, which has since been debunked by Channel 4 News and other media sources. or something like that. It still puts the White Helmets part as her theory, it still describes it as debunked by RSes, but it doesn't make it sound condescending in WP's voice. -- Masem ( t) 19:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I think it should be changed to, or something along those lines. (Except maybe clarify what is meant by "recycle children" because to someone with no background info (in that fleeting first-impression) it sounds like they're grinding them up to make new children.) Zaereth ( talk) 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Dead and (?) wounded children. The claim is that photographs of corpses are staged, with the same child corpses re-used in multiple shots. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

For the lede, going into what "recycled" means here is probably too much detail, just stating that they stage rescues (as what she claims) is sufficient. More detail can be had in the body. -- Masem ( t) 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a problem the wikipedia page about me (I am the person whom this article is about), where someone is posting an inaccurate description of a pending defamation lawsuit that I have against a someone. This appears to be malicious. This information was deleted multiple times, but this person persists, perhaps related to the defendant. This will of course be proven in court, but unsubstantiated and wrong information has serious effects on a people’s personal and professional life, which is why I filed a defamation suit.

In the meantime, I would like to protect the information on this Wikipedia page about me against inaccurate vandalism. Even the New York Daily News article that is linked to is one-sided and does not discuss the facts in my publicly filed complaint.

People who hide behind anonymous identities and who troll the Internet, solely to cause harm to others should not be tolerated. This person is determined to aid in slandering me (there is already pending litigation regarding this case).

I again respectfully request that this unsubstantiated and bias sexual harassment accusation be removed, and that this Wiki page be temporarily frozen so that only admins can edit this page. Wikipedia is not a place for libelous claims.

I will also contact the Daily News, which selectively quoted from my public compliant, without revealing the facts of the pending litigation.

Regards,

Steve Coleman

Mbase1235 ( talk) 14:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Can a quote be used on the basis that it is "famous and controversial" in a context where neither is implied or discussed?

Summary: I made an edit, it was reverted, they gave a reason, and I disagree with the reason.

Here is the link to the Talk Page conversation: /info/en/?search=Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#Brett_Kavanaugh_quote-_keep_or_not,_rationale,_Question_for_MelanieN

This is the quote in question in context:

• Kavanaugh then attended Yale Law School. In his Judiciary Committee testimony, Kavanaugh said he "got into Yale Law School. That's the number-one law school in the country. I had no connections there. I got there by busting my tail in college".[42] During law school he lived in a group house with future judge James E. Boasberg, and played basketball with professor George L. Priest (sponsor of the school's Federalist Society)[43] and was a notes editor for the Yale Law Journal. He graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1990.[44]

I had a problem with the quote initially because it felt out of place. I later learned that this is a famous quote because it is widely seen as an example of Kavanaugh being disingenuous. The quote is explicitly used (in context) to illustrate the mundane fact that Kavanaugh went to Yale. For this purpose it is a somewhat mundane and clumsy quote where a Wikipedian-written sentence would do better. It was explained to me by the people defending the quote that it should be kept because it is controversial and famous (because it is directly relevant to the recent Kavanaugh testimony and catches him speaking deceptively about his experience at Yale), which is an implicit use I disagree with.

These are the reasons why I think the quote should be removed:

1. The quote not a completely accurate statement and the context does not correct for the fact that Kavanaugh was a legacy student. This does not help the reader.

2. The argument for including it on the basis of it being famous and controversial when a mundane and impartial Wikipedian-written explanation would do. The context within "Early life and education" makes no comment on the famousness/controversiallity of the quote when (as it has been made clear to me) it is implied

Neuralnewt ( talk) 02:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not make such judgements on any such quotes in any articles at all. Our own "opinions" are not involved, no matter the topic. By the way "legacy student", as a pejorative, is something you would need a specific source for, as huge numbers of Ivy League students could be called "legacy students" even if their admission was totally unrelated to their relatives. The "relative" in this case was a grandfather, and that is stretching the cavil a few feet too far. Neither parent had any Yale connections at all. Collect ( talk) 12:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Collect, look at my argument in context of the argument I had with the other editors: they wanted to include the quote because of the controversy over him being a legacy student which I disagreed with. They told me that was the reason, and that was my response...

/info/en/?search=Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#Brett_Kavanaugh_quote-_keep_or_not,_rationale,_Question_for_MelanieN

Thanks Neuralnewt ( talk) 23:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Louis Brouillard (  | [[Talk:Draft:Louis Brouillard|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I originally nominated the above article for a G10 speedy delete as it only dealt with accusations of crimes against this person and in the lead it said charges were never brought so violated WP:BLPCRIME. The person died the day before the article was created and as such as per WP:BDP they should be covered by the policy I think. The article creator has said that the person admitted to the crimes and some of the sources report this. The creator asked for help to work on it so I draftified the article. I would appreciate it if one of the regulars here (preferably an admin or very experienced editor) could have a look as it covers Catholic Church child abuse and as such is very touchy. Thanks. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If someone could have a look quite quickly as another editor has decided to move it back to mainspace. Dom from Paris ( talk) 20:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Brouillard. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I had a problem with the biased tone of this article and think it is a misrepresentation to use "cherry picked quotes" from people who disagree with Mr. Barton to claim that his views are outright falsehood. It is reported in the article that his book "the Jefferson Lies" was voted the least credible book of the year. This sounds like an authoritative review from a prestigious publishing company, not an online poll taken by a tiny online website that is unknown. This is a misrepresentation public opinion. If you research the issue you will find that many people agree with his ideas and like his book. I had no clue who Mr. Barton was, but as I was reading this article, it was obvious to me that it was written based on one person's, or a group of people's opinion of the matter, not on facts. IN an online forum that is known as one of the most reliable for facts and un-biased truth, this is not truthful. It is misrepresentation at the least and outright falsehood at the worst. I researched the issue more and found this article misrepresents many things, for example it claims that he is not an "accredited" historian. While this is true, he is recognized as an historical expert by both state and federal courts; has been called to testify as an historical expert by both the federal and state legislatures; was selected as an historical expert by State Boards of Education across the nation to assist in writing history and social studies standards for those states; and was consulted as an historical expert by public school textbook publishers, helping write best-selling history texts used in public schools and universities across the nation. To call somebody a fake and a fraud you have to have a better argument than that he is not a "credited historian". It is interesting to note that there are a lot of credited historians who disagree with each other and call each other spreaders of "outright falsehoods". THe same is true of politics. THis article rings true to the same principles. People who disagree trying to make somebody look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.100.60 ( talk) 02:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be a courtesy to others if you were to provide the link to the article you are talking about, David Barton (author), when you post such things. MPS1992 ( talk) 03:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The guy wrote a book that was subsequently disowned by the publisher. We're not somehow being unfair to him here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Barton is notable for publishing books that have been shown to be inaccurate. Article appropriately states that. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• The article reflects what is seen in mainstream reliable sources, including that he has support from some major political figures, as well as that his work is generally rejected by academic historians. The noting in lack of credentials is in line with coverage of other history specialists, where we tend to note the relevant educational credentials. Nowhere in the article is he called a "fake" or a "fraud"; those words do not appear. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• @ NatGertler: does one of the mainstream reliable sources that you mention, specifically note his lack of relevant educational credentials? Or are we just adding that in Wikipedia's voice based on our own analysis of what credentials we think he should hold? MPS1992 ( talk) 22:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Atlantic says "he is not a historian of any kind (his sole degree is from Oral Roberts University in religious education)", Forth Worth Star-Telegram uses a quote to indicate that he lacks "legitimate credentials". NPR says "David Barton is not a historian. He has a bachelor's degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University" -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, that works. MPS1992 ( talk) 00:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)