Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:30, 28 January 2019

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Harmeet Dhillon

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

A biased editor is removing crucial information from Harmeet Dhillon's Misplaced Pages page even though there is nothing controversial about the edits. Specifically:

|language=en}}</ref> A prominent conservative blog named Powerline Blog called Dhillon "dangerous" and argued that her appointment to the U.S. Department of Justice would be "a shocking betrayal of conservative values." Dhillon has a history of suing individuals to suppress their freedom of speech: for example, she has filed a frivolous lawsuit against an anonymous blogger simply because he used her photo in a blog post. Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief against Dhillon, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Dhillon was criticized for her self-serving and meritless lawsuit: "the plaintiff in this case should have known better than to waste the court’s time on such an outrageous claim." The federal judge found Dhillon's claims to be "speculative and conclusory" and dismissed Dhillon's lawsuit without even granting oral argument.

A. The editor is not allowing the introduction of basic information about the ruling of a federal judge. B. The editor is arguing that "Powerline Blog" is a primary source, even though it isn't. C. Electronic Freedom Foundation is a bipartisan, widely respected organization.

References

1. "A Dangerous Candidate for the Top DOJ Civil Rights Job". Powerline Blog. Retrieved 2018-07-16.
2. "Fair Use Triumphs in the Munger Games". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2018-07-16.
3. "Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Retrieved 2018-12-31.

• Probably because 1) we don't use blogs as sources for contentious material about living persons, 2) a brief filed by the EFF is a primary source, which we also don't use for contentious material about living persons, and 3) the entire passage is written like a Facebook rant from your aunt. GMG 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this "impartial" and condescending input. Misplaced Pages cites blogs all the time: technically, even some news agencies are basically blogs (for example, Gizmodo's publications). Also, are you arguing that a federal judge's opinion is not worth the citation? Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all of GMG's points. BLPs require better sources. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I too agree with GMG. As a Californian who pays close attention to politics, I am quite familiar with her and disagree with her about almost everything. But this biography must comply with BLP policy, and this content in its current form does not comply. The notion that Powerline is an acceptable source for citing contentious material in a BLP is ludicrous. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's nice to see political bias infecting this discussion. Jezebel isn't a blog, but PowerLine is? Powerline is not an acceptable source, but Jezebel is? Removing a federal ruling from the page because it doesn't suit the discussion? OK then. Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on Jezebel or Powerline, since I don't know much about either of them. But there's a Misplaced Pages policy that warns against the use of primary sources, and explicitly forbids the use of court records to make claims about living persons. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. You relied on a court record and documents from a group that filed a brief opposing her for most of the text you attempted to add. Those are not acceptable sources for content making controversial claims about a living person. If the issue was so minor that no reliable independent sources reported on it, then it shouldn't be in her biography. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the OP has been blocked as a  Confirmed sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 19:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Steve King's remarks on white nationalism

The lede of Steve King's article mentions his remarks questioning why the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacy" are offensive (these remarks have led to widespread condemnations by other Republicans, calls for resignation and a serious primary challenge for 2020). King claims that his remarks, which are from an interview with the NY Times, were misinterpreted or misunderstood, and suggests that the NY Times inaccurately transcribed the interview. Does King's response belong in the lede along with the comments themselves? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that it violates NPOV to include a serious accusation against the subject in the lead, but then to relegate his own denial/interpretation to a much less visible section in the body of the article. Note that his interpretation does not necessarily require that the NYTs inaccurately transcribed his literal words, but simply that they may have misinterpreted his intended meaning (and then used punctuation which reflected their misinterpretation / misparsing). There is ongoing discussion on the talk page (Talk). King's official interpretation/response can be found here ] (but has also been reported by NYTs, etc). Also, it is worth noting that King not only denies that he questioned the offensiveness of white supremacy (which the lead treats as fact), he actually claims to consider it "evil" (see previous link), so I think the current lead creates a serious risk of misleading the readers about nature of his expressed views. LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it doesn't. King has form here, so it's entirely appropriate that his views on white nationalism etc. are mentioned in the lead; a claim of inaccurate transcription doesn't carry the same weight. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The claim is not "inaccurate transcription", which would be a matter of *fact*, but rather *interpretation* of an ambiguous statement (i.e. did he intend the comment about offensiveness to apply to all of the preceding items, including white nationalism, or just the last one, i.e. western civilization).LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't object to mentioning accusations of white nationalism in the lead, but we should give both sides (together), including his own interpretation of we he meant by his statements.LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe split the sentence in the lede . "Several politicians and journalist considered statements made by King about white nationalism and supremacy in a January 2019 to be racist and offensive, though King denied this was the intent of his quotes. Regardless, the RDC removed King from all congressional committees on the basis of his remarks." I think you should try to briefly include it but save the long-winded quoting for the body. --Masem (t) 16:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this would definitely be an improvement, and it could be a reasonable compromise. Though I do worry that this wording may create the implication that the dispute is about whether the claims were "racist" and "offensive", whereas the substance of his denial is that the claims are simply being misinterpreted or mis-parsed. So I wonder if something like the following would more fairly capture these concerns: "In a January 2019 interview, King was quoted as questioning the offensiveness of white nationalism and supremacy, but King denied this interpretation of his statements. Several politicians and journalist considered his comments to be racist and offensive, and the RDC removed King from all congressional committees soon afterwards." LoveIsGrue (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the version as it exists right now is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the current version still includes the accusation in the lead, but relegates his denial/interpretation to the body of the article.LoveIsGrue (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that's appropriate because his denial is not a significant point. It's not noteworthy, unusually, surprising, or believable.- MrX 🖋 18:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is the editor's role to assess whether his claims are "believable" (see WP:NOR), but for what it's worth the original interpretation (that he disputes) is somewhat "surprising" to me given his general emphasis on culture rather than race and his claims that white nationalism and supremacy are "evil" (for example). Also, his denials of serious allegations are certainly "noteworthy" in his own biographical page, especially given that the accusations are in the lead.LoveIsGrue (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this. -- Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that that version is improperly speaking a POV in WP's voice. Ideally, we should present the quote as printed and not pass judgetment and instead point to those that found it offensive (I read the quote, and see at least three different ways to take its meaning, including the offensive route, but also a rhetorical question as well). But this the lede, and key for the lede is that the impression his statements made has caused him to lose committee seats and other factors. Exactly what was said is outside the scope of the lede, just only how they were taken by politics. --Masem (t) 18:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think your version is a reasonable compromise, and I would support it. That said, I don't fully understand your concerns with the alternate wording that I suggested above, since it does seem to stick to facts (i.e. the NYTs interviewer did interpret/quote him as stated, and he denied that interpretation). But these are subtleties, and I would support either your version or my suggested alternative, whichever has the better chance of achieving consensus (given that both are much improved over the status quo in terms of NPOV).LoveIsGrue (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should follow reliable sources, and their emphasis, in our coverage. (I recognize that this has become a minority viewpoint on Misplaced Pages, and on these noticeboards). The current text does a good job of this, and includes, in the article body, King's claim that his statements legitimizing white supremacy were taken out of context. Since his explanation has been treated skeptically, not only by reliable sources but by his own party and former allies, I think it is appropriate to mention them in the body but not to emphasize them in the lead. The existing text is fully policy-compliant. While of course it can always be improved, there is no BLP issue there. MastCell  01:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP states that when public figures face negative allegations, their denials should be reported in the article; now perhaps you can meet the "letter" of this rule by including the accusations prominently in the lead and then burying his denials in the body of article, but this is almost certainly going to mislead readers who only see the lead and does not respect WP:NPOV. His official statements are reliable sources for his own page and are of particular relevance in this case given that the dispute is about the intended meaning of his own statements; not to mention that his denials have been widely reported in reliable sources.

A related issue is that the current lead treats it as an undisputed *fact* (not just a widely held opinion) that King questioned the offensiveness of white supremacy in the interview, which will undoubtably mislead readers into thinking that this is his *official* view; now you emphasize that his party and allies have treated his claims skeptically, but politicians are not[REDACTED] reliable sources for claims of fact (as this accusation is currently treated in the lead). The reality is that the current lead gives overwhelming emphasis and weight to criticisms of King (including this one), so it beggars belief to suggest that it would provide undo weight to include a brief and reliably sourced parenthetical indicating that he has denied this interpretation of his claim (as per Masem's suggestion above); on the other hand, doing so would certainly improve the balance and neutrality of the lead and avoid unnecessarily misleading readers.LoveIsGrue (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The current introduction is inadequate. He denies having intended the meaning. Perhaps the best one can hope for is the reader's conclusion that someone's a liar. That still doesn't give us the right to pick and choose which serious accusations we present without the subject's response, if any. I have a counter in my head of the number of words after the accusation it takes before the denial. In this case: Far, far too many words. Denials aren't some small print, footnote, pro forma, government-mandated requirement, but are a central component of all serious accusations in a BLP. For brevity, a fragment can suffice. "Said x, though he says he was misunderstood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not buying whatsoever the claims and position of User:MrX. There is no consensus here that we sneak in the claim and bury the specific response. Not buying this claim User:MrX whatsoever. Has anyone tallied a vote? This lead violates clear BLP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• The BLPs for James Traficant, Al Franken, John Conyers, and Mark Foley all have major scandals listed in their lead paragraphs. None of those articles contain any mention of their responses to those scandals. Trent Lott is probably the clearest analogue for King in recent political history, and his bio also follows the same pattern of mentioning the gaffe but leaving the response for the article body. I could see a case for Masem's proposed wording, but the important information is that he had a scandal and that scandal caused him to lose his committee assignments. His denial is part of that story, but it's not the most important part. Nblund 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I will set out to fix those 4 pages. If you want to bury the rebuttal, than bury the substance of the claim with it. Sounds like what Masem's proposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You would need to do a lot more than just those 5, I think. Even if we only look at good articles: Bill Clinton, Narendra Modi, Newt Gingrich, Rob Ford, and Charles Rangel all follow the same pattern of mentioning a major scandal in the lead without discussing the rebuttal from the BLP. There are cases, like Jesse Jackson Jr., where we mention how someone pleads in court, but I don't see a whole lot beyond that. The formulation in the lead at Steve King also closely parallels the lead paragraphs in most of the press coverage (New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, and CNN all do the same. Nblund 03:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The key is to make sure that the lede wording is to establish that the point of issue (in this case, the meaning of King's statements) was the subject of debate, which implicitly suggests that the person at the center was counter to how it was taken by others. Whether that that person's specific response is needed to be spelled out in the lede depends strongly on the situation and how it is written. For example, I take the lded in Ford's article above as reasonable to suggest that the actions Ford was claimed to have done that led to the controversy was disputed by King, without it having to be specifically said, because the tone taken is not immediately accusational. Now, the problem with King here is that directly because of how his words were taken that key changes happened (loss of committee seats), so it seems more important to establish King's denial. It's a situation to be determined case by case, but what's clear is that if there had been debate on what exactly happened, WP should not write in a tone that ignores that debate. --Masem (t) 03:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A pattern of doing it wrong is not an argument for doing it wrong here. We do not approach this matter as the NPOV press does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Masem: Al Franken's case also involves a contested question of public perceptions, so does Trent Lott's. The lead needs to hit major career turning points. King's comments about white supremacy had a real consequence. His denial, by contrast, hasn't made a difference. I'm struggling to even find editorials agreeing that he was misconstrued, so what can we say beyond "he denied it"? Mumia Abu-Jamal is a useful comparison here: the debate around Mumia's innocence is probably more important to his bio than the conviction. Even in that case, we don't cite Mumia's own denials in the lead - we point to the public debate around his case instead. Can we point to a notable debate here? Nblund 05:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Franken's case has "Franken resigned on January 2, 2018, after several allegations of groping were made against him." which implicitly points to questions whether the allegations were true or not, so it doesn't likely need anything from Franken to counter it. Lott's has "On December 20, 2002, after significant controversy following comments regarding Strom Thurmond's presidential candidacy, Lott resigned as Senate Minority Leader." which doesn't go into any of the specific content of the statements, so again, avoids the issue. The past and current lede on King do not give that benefit doubt, which is where the problem is. --Masem (t) 06:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

These examples were helpful to look at, but I think Masem's counter-points are correct. A key problem with the current lede is that it states the contested accusations as a *fact*, whereas other[REDACTED] articles typically do not, e.g. they explicitly frame them as mere "allegations" (per Franken or Foley), or use abstract language that doesn't take sides (per Lott), etc. --LoveIsGrue (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Trent Lott entry notes that he stepped down after praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid - so the details are there. I don't really have a problem with saying that King "appeared to question...", but it seems tough to justify that change since most reliable sources use the same matter-of-fact phrasing used in the current lead. King was very recently caught lying about his own comments to the Weekly Standard, which may be part of the reason why reliable sources are not extending the benefit of a doubt here - I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that we shouldn't lend credence to King's dissembling. Nblund 17:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Lott's last lede paragraph still does not assert anything about the nature of his statements (and certainly not about praising Thurmond) only that they were controversial, which gives implicit recognition that there was a dispute involved in what he said. The sentence doesn't state whom was right or wrong, in a matter-of-fact-ly voice, just that because that controversy expected, a major career change impacted him. --Masem (t) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The Lott approach is really the only way to keep the controversy explicitly in the lede without including his response. While I feel including subject responses can be a struggle, they often aren't. Put them anywhere, but keep them as close to the offensive claim as possible. Call it your duty to an encyclopedia if you prefer. I do it for mass-murderers and corrupt politicians every day. There's no "lede loophole" some have sought. Furthermore, I think there's obvious value to coupling statements with re-statements, especially when done consistently. I have struggled with the short sentences of Mark Lindquist. It's even a duty to give enough substance to the denial. Not that "he denies", what about "called the views 'evil'". This interaction arguably ended his political career, which is noteworthy enough. A BLP is eternally deferential to alternative explanations by the subject. I came into some headlines myself to learn this Misplaced Pages maxim. If you embrace it, you will write better encyclopedia copy. A persistent liar could merit a careful study in a whole section of statements and re-statements. But none of that boils down to special rules in ledes for liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm referencing the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Lott entry which says Lott "stepped down from power after praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist Dixiecrat presidential bid." - the second mention is less detailed, but the first is quite specific. Lott insisted he didn't intend to praise the segregationist aspect of the campaign, but no one really took that argument seriously. I don't know that BLP's are "eternally deferential": Wikipedians have previously erred on the side of ignoring the subjects "alternative explanations" when those alternative explanations are largely ignored by reliable sources. Nblund 01:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Aha, I see that first part, which I think is not appropriate, but that's a very confused lede (doubling up on that). The second instance is worded more neutralty in relationship to the controversy over his comments. --Masem (t) 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Lott page, one issue is that he doesn't deny praising Strom's campaign (or that the campaign was segregationist), so unlike the current page, the Lott lead avoids explicitly stating disputed claims as facts. That said, it's true that "segregationist" in this context arguably *insinuates* that Lott may have supported that aspect of the campaign, so I do think it would be better to avoid it in the lead, but this implicature is fairly subtle in comparison to the issues in the King page. LoveIsGrue (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also while the person is alive, or reasonable still active, we should never ignore what the BLP has to say in their controversy, but how much of what they say in the lede can be metered. Simplying stating that something they said was controversial and led to a career change is sufficient. We need to to avoid the absolute, though. --Masem (t) 01:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeni Barnett

The section about vaccines has unsourced, blog sourced, and dead link sourced negative BLP content, I don't have time to do any more looking for sources, so I am posting this here in hopes the someone else can look into this ASAP. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the unsourced material, undue material, and excessive blog-related material. I've left some of the blog links in references in case there's any value in them somehow. MPS1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That was an improvement, although the first line is still negative BLP content sourced to the Bad Science blog. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles

I need someone to have a look at this. Please check whether the sourcing is up to snuff, whether names are mentioned properly, etc.--if not, we can revdelete. I can't do that study right now, but I couldn't let the content stand. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That diff has been redacted.--Auric talk 13:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Troye Sivan

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

Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has now twice removed an established reliable source at Troye Sivan stating Sivan is in a relationship. Their justification is that this isn't a "recent" source (the source is approximately one year old).

Could someone please confirm we would never remove a reliable source verifying someone being in a relationship, or the statement that they are, simply because the source is X days/weeks/years old, without (of course) new sources that provided updated information? (for interest's sake, it is simple to find more recent sources that confirm the relationship although their use should not be necessary because relationships do not automatically "expire" as this particular editor seems convinced they do). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"has been romantically linked to" is true to what we know: at one time it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, editor who forgot to sign your post, if you can provide a recent/current source for the claimed relationship, why don't you just put it into the article rather than wikilawering about WP:V and BLP requirements? When we're dealing with "internet celebrities" and other folks at the low end of the notability scale, reliable press coverage of their "relationships" is happenstance at best, and there's no reason to believe that something said more than a year ago remains true today. Hell, I know Personally a notable performer with decades of credits and a longstanding Misplaced Pages article, whose divorce more than a year ago has gone unreported, though their marriage has been widely reported. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• From a more policy-related standpoint, we are not a celebrity gossip site. Since people can fall into and out of relationships at the drop of a hat, in comparison to engagements or marriages, we really should not be covering these unless they are significant factors in their life. And because these relationships are very fleeting, I would agree that documenting a relationship from a year-old source is not reliable for that purpose. --Masem (t) 04:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above statements. Wondering if the source was something like Daily Mail? If it was, there is no reason for wikilawyering, plain and simple.--Biografer (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It appeared to be from Paper (magazine) Not that that is not an RS, but even if it was the NYTimes reporting on the relationship, if it was still from a year ago and nothing new came of it, I would still omit it, simply because of how fleeting relationships can be. --Masem (t) 04:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • What if we use the word was instead of is? It might solve a headache. Besides, since when did recentism was OK?--Biografer (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• My apologies for not signing. I've fixed that. I haven't put in more recent sources because that's not the point; the point is we don't remove sourced information from an article simply because the source is X days/weeks/years old unless we have new sources to back up that removal. That's not wikilawyering: that's a foundational principle of the project. The onus to justify a removal of sourced info is on the editor making the change, by referring to more recent or more reliable sources which consensus agrees supersede the existing statement(s). Also, "low notability" and "Internet celebrity" is not an accurate representation of Sivan's current pop music prominence so that attempt at hand-waving is a red herring. Finally, we aren't debating whether the material warranted inclusion in the first place: we are debating whether the removal of existing sourced information is justified because its sources are "old", where "old" is arbitrarily defined by a single editor and not based on any kind of guidelines I've ever encountered. The statement was not removed because the relationship described was "only" dating and not an engagement/marriage, it was removed (at least according to the edit summary given) because the source of the information was deemed to be stale, which again is not any kind of policy I'm aware of. I've certainly never seen other editors engage in behaviour that would lead me to believe this was a thing; if it was a widespread, supported approach, it would mean thousands of edits a day to remove statements whose sources had become "too old". —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The foundation starts with what is appropriate information to include in WP, and a celebrity's relationship status (outside of marriage) is not something we normally include. That's the first question to be asked. --Masem (t) 15:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• • At a minimum, naming this person seems to violate WP:LPNAME. They don't seem to be notable, since they weren't even a red link, and I see no reason why "such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Anyway the simple fact is we do not add every single person someone, even someone highly notable, is publicly linked to in some source. This is actually probably far more of a problem in articles of highly notable people where someone being spotted with someone else even once is probably going to be mentioned in hundreds of sources. Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel

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

Why does this guy have a Misplaced Pages page when the only notable event in his life is that Buzz Aldrin decked him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.144.130 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Well but he directed two films that have reasonably substantial articles here. And he has other films. Herostratus (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

He was punched in part because of those films, so it's a little strange to say that the was only notable thing he was involved in.--Auric talk 13:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Covington Catholic High School

Recent incident there involving minors. I initiated an RfC, here: Talk:Covington Catholic High School#Request for comment: Including material on the incident. I deleted the material, it was restored, so I'm fouled out. IMO the material ought to be redacted until there's a clear consensus to include it, on the grounds that is highly inflammatory material regarding minors that might not even be true, so if anybody wants to do that, fine. OTOH the minors are not named. Anyway the RfC is there, and I made my points there. Herostratus (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There's now some highly inflammatory material about a named non-minor BLP as well, with editors disagreeing as to whether sources support it or not. More eyes on this article would be greatly appreciated. MPS1992 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes and now someone is throwing out various stuff on the talk page, including the name/mugshot of a minor who was accused of a heinous crime, which has nothing to do with the event in question. He did go to the school, and the material is ref'd, in fact its just a link, but we would never never put this in the article so it shouldn't be in the Misplaced Pages at all, but I deleted it and it was restored so I've fouled out. An admin taking a interest in this would be good I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Little River Band

Biased editors are constantly removing relevant updated info on the current touring Little River Band. How can we stop this from happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you expand onthis, User:DinaMoore? All I see from you is the last two edits, which are appropriate -- the entire section looks to be unref'd, so certainly statements like "nor did they contribute to the success the band had in the 1970s" should be removed. You did so and haven't (yet) been gainsaid, so what's the problem? Herostratus (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC) You seem to be quite knowledgeable about all of this and I am not. How can we clean up that Little River Band so it is fair and unbiased. The whole page is bias to the beginning formation of the band, of which, had the band actually ended when the first member left from the original formation, the band would have been over in 2 years. Any expert advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

The LRB headlined the local fair in my hometown, the Tanana Valley State Fair, this past August. I did not attend, so I can't say what the lineup was or how it differs from the classic lineup, which I would guess is the point being made here. It had been many years since the TVSF brought in a mainstream outside act for a concert, the last one being The Marshall Tucker Band. I did attend that concert and the band at that time consisted of Doug Gray and a bunch of guys who looked like they doubled as his roadies. Is that what you're getting at, DinaMoore? The point I would make is that any band touring the state fair circuit is probably not getting any coverage from mainstream music sources and therefore the type of sourcing the average Wikipedian desires is going to be lacking, which is probably why you're getting responses wondering what exactly you're asking for. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So the complaint here is that the editors on the article are doing too much...reminiscing? Thank you. I'll see myself out. Dumuzid (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I like that, very cute with the too much reminiscing comment. This has been a battle for the past 2 years by someone who is a huge fan of the original members of the band creating a false narrative and attempting to make the current touring band as bad as possible. How can I make that stop. Is there somebodies attention I can bring this too that can stop (whoever is editing) this page from doing it in such a bias manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that I have no idea what you are talking about. No offense intended, but you are making vague statements about "someone" and "others", but I have no clue who these people are. This is followed by opinions that something is being made to look bad, but by who's opinion? It's as if I were to go on Judge Judy and say, "Someone is doing something somewhere and I don't like it". We need specific details of what the problem is; all the who, what, when, where, how and whys. Include diffs if you can. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How far can we go with BLPCRIME?

I've just started a stub for Vijay Mishra (politician). This source is far from being the only one that refers to his, erm, colourful reputation. It is early days but to the best of my knowledge the guy has never been found guilty of anything, although the number of cases seems to be rising.

Filing charges against politicians is common in India, and the legal process is notoriously slow. Sometimes those charges seem to be political tit-for-tat rather than necessarily likely to succeed. Do we ignore them until there is an outcome, which may be a decade or more hence, or can we say something? And if we say something, where do we draw the line? Eg: could we say he had 62 cases pending against him as of 2012? Could we say more, eg: that they included charges of murder, attempt to murder and land grabbing? It seems wrong to brush all this under the rug but, obviously, there are BLP concerns. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

As he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE - BLPCRIME is not relevant (and explicitly says so - it applies to non-public figures only) - for public figures we merely reflect the balance of coverage, including the BLP's denials.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Should have spotted that but I tend to prefer my subjects dead, sorry. Cue comments about my murderous tendencies? - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Lech Wałęsa

Lech Wałęsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has become an unpopular and problematic chap in recent Polish history. Still, there are some reasons to protect his honour from people like 185.7.216.130 (talk · contribs) and others anonymouses. SP the page, maybe? --Edelseider (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's only the one IP, 185.7.216.130, and one edit — a serious one, granted. I've given 185.7.216.130 an "only warning". 82.132.229.79, back in December, was merely virtuously copyediting. Certainly we must protect the honour of our BLPs, but semiprotection doesn't seem needed for this one at present. Please feel free to tell me on my page if you should see any further problems, Edelseider. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC).

No, sorry, Bishonen, but its the second time this IP 185.7.216.130 makes this edit, and if you look at the history of its contributions, this IP specializes in adding the information that "XX is a known bitter drunkard" (which in some cases is not far from the truth, but still libellous) to various BLPs. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but this IP edits rarely, and the other several "drunkard" BLP vios you refer to happened in November 2018. It's a pity nobody reported them then — I would have placed a block if I'd been aware of it at the time — but I won't block months after it happened. If another admin feels differently, that's fine by me. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC).

Nathan Phillips (activist)

Numerous editors have tried adding text to the Nathan Phillips (activist) article that claims that he's lying about his background as a Vietnam War veteran. This is currently a big right-wing talking point, yet there's no WP:RS to support text that calls his veteran status into question. More eyes on the Phillips article would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the sources supporting his veteran status - they seem to be coming from interviews with Phillips - so should be attributed to him (and does seem to perhaps not add up (vs 72 to 76) - but I agree Washington Times is not the best of sources for BLP). More importantly - is he notable at all? Or is this a WP:BLP1E on this song vs. MAGA incident? Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Many RS just describe him as a "Vietnam War veteran" without elaboration or attribution. The 72-76 bit seems solely sourced to Phillips, so should be attributed as far as I understand the Wiki rules. Whether he is notable, I couldn't say. There's some non-2019 RS content about him on his article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

He might just pass the threshold of GNG, but is a very good example of why that bar is too low, especially for living people. He's not a public figure, he won't be remembered in decades to come, and his article will attract a series of random factoids but as it is there is not enough to say about him to write a coherent narrative of his life. Deleting the article now would only save us problems in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also speaking more broadly, the whole situation (the demonstrations/etc. event) is an example of NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM, where in such a controversial situation that now we know has several points of failure in the reporting, should not be included until we have better hindsight if it is truly a notable event and can write to why it is a notable event with more objectivity. --Masem (t) 15:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC) (ETA: this editorial from the NYTimes is absolutely essential to WP in light of this story). --Masem (t) 16:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand of the Washington Times reporting (again - not the best of sources) - they aren't claiming Phillips lied, but rather he said a "Vietnam times veteran" (so - someone who served around the same time as the (winding down) war - I did look at the CNN interview and that's what he said on-air there (while the CNN anchor said Vietnam vet)) - and that then CNN (and others) misreported this as "Vietnam veteran". I would suggest attributing his service to a stmt he himself made, as it seems some of the reporting might be mildly inaccurate (and echoed down the line - lots of copy-paste reporting here) on this background detail. Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, he's also said explicitly "Vietnam War veteran". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding a good RS (eg not Washington Times or Red State) that notes the concern of his military status though it's clearly out there on edges of what we'd take as RSes. Add that we have nothing that actually demonstrates that fact either, so we should treat his statement as a self-claim until we can be shown otherwise. Probably best, until we can better source, using "Phillips describes himself as a "Vietnam War veteran"." which is clearly sourcable, and leave out anything else at this point related to that. --Masem (t) 16:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is CNN - they transcribed - "And I'm a Vietnam veteran and I know that mentality of "There's enough of us. We can do this" - however if you listen to the video, then at around 0:38 he says this - but doesn't use "Vietnam veteran" but "Vietnam times veteran" - so the CNN transcript is quite obviously not word for word. Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at coverage prior to this MAGA-song cycle - "You know, I’m from Vietnam times. I’m what they call a recon ranger. That was my role. So I thank you for taking that point position for me"Vogue 2018 - again "Vietnam times". Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Another oldie source saying "a veteran of the Vietnam era". The question still remains, should he even have an article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And they specifically note (at the bottom) a correction to the Vietnam detail - "Note: This article has been adjusted from it's original version to show that Nathan Phillips was a Vietnam-era veteran and that he was spit on while in uniform as opposed to when he was returning from combat.". The dangers of loose copy-paste reporting.Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I saw the edit tag as well. I took it to mean they moved the spitting stuff, but eh who knows. PackMecEng (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My guess is they made the same mistake of modifying "Vietnam times"/"Vietnam era" vet into "Vietnam vet". Phillips actually seems to be very consistent in what he says (which fits the definition in Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act). Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Bingo - gold standard - WaPo - "Correction: Earlier versions of this story incorrectly characterized Native American activist Nathan Phillips as a Vietnam War veteran. Phillips served in the U.S. Marines from 1972 to 1976 but was never deployed to Vietnam." inWaPo story from 20 Jan 2019 Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, let's incorporate that into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A rare instance of "Milkshake Duck: Maybe Not So Bad After All." Dumuzid (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudo-bio of subject known for one event. Cover lightly in the incident only. Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about outing and redaction

WP:OUTING says:

"...if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Misplaced Pages: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority."

If an individual reveals their real identity on their user page leaves the information up for nine months, editing it seven times in that period, then blanks the page, and there is good reason to believe that the user is an undisclosed paid COI editor, would linking to an old version of his user page that shows his identity be considered outing? I think it would, but I wanted to check.

Related question: the editor never requested oversight, and has not edited in months. Should I request it for him? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Kate_Moss

link to reference 67 is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.168.171 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This board is not really for reporting dead links, unless they significant affect a BLP. In this case, that did not, and the dead link was easily fixed with a trip to the Wayback Machine at archive.org. --Masem (t) 19:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

vandal claiming astronaut's daughter is really a transgender boy

The only edits of TheADagone are putting in a lie about an astronaut's child, then lying on the talk page claiming he knew the person and his lie was true. Talk:Scott_Kelly_(astronaut)#Gender_of_children I reported this on the vandalism area but no action taken and it removed after four hours for being a stale report. . Anyway, can someone spread rumors about someone's child like that? Dream Focus 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not, not without sources. The only case where I would consider this close to acceptable in light of no sources or contradictory sources, is if there was a direct and immediate family relationship (single generation, biological connection), and even then, we need that editor to affirm their identity and determine if it was appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 21:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that's even revdel appropriate, though that is decidedly not my call. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally, "stuff" about minor children is beyond the pale. Collect (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if it was true, i doubt if the trans status of a child is relevant to the biography of the parent. Surely Misplaced Pages would protect the child from being outed. ~ BOD ~ 21:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(Hijiri88 here; not block-evading, since it's a self-block that was requested under unfortunate circumstances that have since somewhat changed, and I've basically decided to rescind my retirement notice, partly because I want to keep building the encyclopedia without "letting the harassers win", and partly to keep Dream Focus from disrupting the encyclopedia by posting plagiarized text, OR and virulently xenophobic gibberish because he thinks that with me gone no one will bother keeping tabs on him, and he may actually be right. I figured letting the block expire and not asking for an extension, and using the opportunity for a wikibreak, would be best. Also DF is still hounding me; it was pretty bloody obvious he posted that vicious personal attack against me on his talk page, and unlike me he didn't own up to his posting logged out, which makes it illegitimate sockpuppetry, and his suddenly showing back up immediately when I was briefly blocked in August, and then again when I posted a retirement message earlier this month, is just more evidence of this.) Just noting here that, while the SPA's edits are blatantly disruptive and their talk page defense clearly indicates that they were trolling, DF's response, such as referring to transgender males who keep their gender identity private and poses as women in public -- I think that's what he's saying? -- as "boy is not much better, borders on transphobia, and if it were about a bona fide transgender individual confirmed as such in reliable source would probably constitute revdel-worthy BLP violation. On an unrelated note, since BLP applies to talk pages, it doesn't make much sense to revdel the SPA's original edit but not the talk page section about it; I'd support blanking the section and revdelling. 103.5.140.133 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The edits to the article and talk page by TheADagone have been rev deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: A few minutes after I posted the above, Clpo13 (talk · contribs) redacted 87 bytes worth of text, presumably especially egregious BLP-violation, but the rest of the discussion, including the alleged "male name" of the individual in question and so on, is still live. It's the whole discussion that I was talking about. 103.5.140.140 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Anastasia Vashukevich

This article is a BLP, and contains only two inline references to websites that I don't recognize as reliable sources of news. There are four article sections and seven paragraphs that are supposedly supported by those two inline references. The article appears to be a dump of speculation about pornography, prostitution, and politics. I think the BLP should just be deleted until a somebody decides to write a real article, if one is warranted. -Darouet (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's much better sourced now. She's extremely notable and has been in the news (and RS) many times. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Her story about becoming notorious needs all the references and has none. (Am I seeing things? There are no references in this section?) Noteable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There are now sections of the article that are sourced, but the whole article still needs attention. -Darouet (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Judith Hallett

Judith P. Hallett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the third time in the space of a year that an anonymous editor has sought to introduce changes that this board has determined fall far foul of Wikpedia's content and it's ended up here (see links to archives below). Can more be done - e.g., pending changes, or protect the page - given this does now keep happening. Frankly this is consuming more time than I have to continually deal with this. Pinging Wham2001 Johnuniq Richard Nevell - how can this be better done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive278

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Judith_Hallett

Claire 75 (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing there is controversial. She posted comments on an internet forum that turned out to be wrong. Big deal. Who hasn't? She also allegedly worked on an op/ed piece that others disagreed with, possibly containing factual errors. Nothing atypical. That's why we don't accept op/ed pieces as RSs. This is pushed with weasel words saying that "some" have called it controversial. I'm sorry, but a controversy is a "widespread, public debate about a topic or an issue". There is no evidence that any of this raised a controversy, and simply calling it one doesn't make it so. It's just typical internet stuff and not even significant enough to be notable, let alone controversial.

Unfortunately, most of us here are not admins, but regular users with a good knowledge of and interest in BLPs. For page protection or the like, you may get faster results by taking this to ANI or a similar forum. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My initial thought in seeing the added and removed material was that it didn't belong in Judith P. Hallett's bio. I made a talk page note to that effect .

After reading the 1999 WSJ article on the subject titled "It's War!" I'm not so sure. It's possible that a short (2–3 sentence) mention of this whole affair might be warranted.

In brief, in 1998 scholars Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath wrote a book called "Who Killed Homer?" in which they argued, according to the WSJ, that "Contemporary classics professors, the ostensible caretakers of Greek wisdom, have turned into grant-seeking purveyors of identity politics and wreckers of the ancient spirit of the university."

In response Hallett, also a classicist, stated on an "e-mail forum subscribed to by more than a thousand classicists around the world" (WSJ) that she had earlier, in 1995, given Hanson and Heath's names "to the FBI during the nationwide effort to find the Unabomber" (Hallett), because of the similarity of their outlook and writing style.

According to Eric Adler, author of "Classics, the Culture Wars, and Beyond," Hallett still maintains that she had reported Heath and Hanson and that it was the right thing to do. Heath and the author of the WSJ article doubted that Hallett had really made a report to the FBI, suggesting that Hallett's comment was a kind of revenge for Heath and Hanson's book "Who Killed Homer."

Given the coverage at the time and continuing reports on the topic it's probably reasonable to have a brief description of the incident. -Darouet (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That may be so, and it may indeed be worth mentioning briefly, but not as it was written. The addition to the article was really a longwinded way of saying nothing, and most certainly didn't mention any of these things. It's really up to the person who wants to make the addition to sort out all of the details and vagueness from the real gist of it, and then convey that in a way that is the least subject to misinterpretation. If you'd like to give the info in a more encyclopedic fashion, you are welcome to give it a shot, but, given the history, I'd recommend sorting it out on the talk page before putting it up on mainspace. Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: thanks, agree completely. -Darouet (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems little point in having a BLP noticeboard if it's not the place to sort out these sorts of issues - the repeated re-introduction of material that contravenes BLP guidance. As Johnuniq says: "The text is silly muck racking of trivia from decades ago. It is trivia unless a reliable secondary source says otherwise. An earlier discussion was at BLPN March 2018. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)"

There are no "continuing reports on the topic", just the continued, anonymous vandalism of the page by repeatedly re-introducing material that editors have already decided fouls the rules. The question is what to do about the continued vandalism. What is the "ANI or a similar forum" (talk) Claire 75 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I know it seems overly bureaucratic, but there is a limit to what a regular user can do. It's like going to the housing board to report your house has been robbed. They'll tell you to call the police. This board is for giving guidance, soliciting help with problems, discussing how something fits into the scope of the policy, etc... That doesn't give us the power to block people, protect pages, ban users, or other administrative actions. For that, you need to get an administrator involved. There are admins who patrol this page, but it could be a while before you get one's attention ... if ever.

ANI is the WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Most of the people patrolling that page are admins, so my suggestion is that you will likely get a quicker response over there. I'd also suggest that you clearly yet briefly state the problem (ie: so-and-so user is involved in a slow edit war, refuses to discuss on the talk page, and is persistently inserting material deemed inappropriate by the BLP noticeboard), include links to the history page of the article, specific links to the diffs (different revisions, namely the offensive ones), and link to this conversation. (The more legwork you do for them; the more likely they will be to respond.) Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party here; it's been one of those weeks. I agree with johnuniq over at the talk page: the material as it stands is tendentious editorialising of silly trivia from years ago and should not be in the article. Unfortunately I don't have access to the WSJ source to see whether there is enough there to justify a one-sentence mention.

In terms of stopping this happening again, you could request pending changes protection or semi-protection at WP:RFPP. If you want to go to ANI as suggested above I would think first about what you would like the admins to do about the problem; I can't personally see that any of the administrative tools other than page protection could be much help here. Wham2001 (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger Stone

• Roger Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please watchlist this article, Stone has just been Muellered and this is quite a big deal. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Gina Haspel

An editor has continued to push for the change of the word "claim" to "indicate" regarding the subject of this article being the Chief of Base of a clandestine CIA detention site on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. The source only claims that the subject held this role however there isn't any confirmation of this therefore we cannot use the word indicate and can only speculate based on the reference. The editor in question has a long history of BLP violations and has been warned by numerous administrators about this. 129.100.255.32 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Stroth

• Andrew Stroth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More than a whiff of promotion in recent changes, especially the introduction of clients represented, often accompanied by cites that don't mention Mr. Stroth. More eyes on this appreciated; there may be some COI here. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• So far I'm seeing mostly peripheral mentions, a sentence or two in articles about his clients and cases. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew M. Stroth, which seems to still be relevant. Is notability established? Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Billy Burke (actor)

• Billy Burke (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some help will be appreciated re: the subject's birthplace and WP:RELIABLE sources. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

James S. MacDonald

Request for full page protection as one user in particular, Wald76, is not adhering to Biography of Living Persons guidelines. User is repeatedly adding content and references from non-neutral tabloid sources, and repeatedly deletes neutral content with valid references cited.

The article in question appears to be about James MacDonald (pastor) and the "tabloid" appears to be Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) which is a broadsheet (or possibly the Chicago Tribune which is also a broadsheet). The fairly mild statement that a lawsuit was dropped to avoid discovery appears to be well sourced.©Geni (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Jagdish Tytler

Jagdish Tytler is an Indian politician, mostly known for being accused as involved in 1984 anti-Sikh riots and for that the subject has been a part of couple of investigations.

One user has disputed years old content about the details about investigations and the statements of the witnesses. The user claims that such statements constitute BLP violation per this edit. Though the removed these events are widely covered and have been only presented as allegations, similar to those at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Content appears to have been correctly included for years per WP:WELLKNOWN that if "an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

The removed content includes:

• an allegation that Tytler "was complaining to his supporters about relatively "small" number of Sikhs killed," which is properly sourced as allegation to this source and has been regularly covered by independent sources as: "nominal killing of Sikhs in his constituency," "nominal killing of Sikhs in his constituency,", "for the “nominal killings" carried out in the riots,", and also written in the report by Nanavati commission as "alleged to have further stated that there was only nominal killing". I am not sure about this sentence but the allegation has been deemed important by independent reliable sources.

• information about well known witnesses who were not contacted by Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and;
• later the CBI had to fly to New York for hearing the statements of these witnesses.

These two paragraphs about witness being not contacted by CBI and later CBI flying to New York to hear their allegations against Tytler also found major coverage in a chapter of this academic book (by ABC-CLIO).

I wonder if mentioning these notable incidents constituted BLP violation when the content found mass coverage in independent sources even after years of the initial report. They have been presented only as allegations to discuss the basis of the allegations and investigations. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fact # 1: Tytler has been elected 4 times as a Delhi Sadar (Lok Sabha constituency)#Members of Parliament and has served for 11 years in the Union Council of Ministers. So he is clearly known for much more than just the riots.
• Fact # 2: This living person has never been convicted or indicted or charged in any crime related to the riots. There has been tons of accusations in the media, from his rival political opponents.
• Fact # 3: None of the 10+ investigations have found anything against him. Only Nanavati commission in its report stated that Tytler "probably had a hand in inciting the crowd"
• Fact # 4: After #3 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's premier investigative agency have investigated the accusations and have cleared Tytler "three times" already stating the accusations were false and fabricated.
• Inspite of all these a section of users, having vested interests against this living person have successfully managed to maintain his WP:BLP effectively as an WP:ATTACKPAGE and for getting political points out of the[REDACTED] article just like they try and score political points in media.
• WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly states: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
• Despite all this, this IP user above is consistently going overboard in his efforts to maintain this article as an attack page using poorly sourced and cherry picked egregious allegations and accusations against him.
• Regarding the first point, I have mentioned this on the talk page section Talk:Jagdish_Tytler#Unsubstantiated_quote_attributed_to_Tytler that his wiki bio article had stated that "Tytler, then a member of the Indian Parliament, was complaining to his supporters about relatively "small" number of Sikhs killed in his parliamentary constituency Delhi Sadar, which in his opinion had undermined his position in the ruling Indian National Congress party of India." This is a blatant WP:BLP violation. There is no evidence or reliable source that Tytler said these things. these are unsubstantiated and unproven accusations from lawyers and not Tytlers own statement, as is being stated in the wiki article. There is no reliable evidence that Tytler said those things and the Nanavati commision only mentions that "Some people have alleged that Tytler said so and so", so the original source of this egregious statement here is clearly the accusers and nothing else. Accordingly I have removed this from the article. But this IP is repeatedly restoring this (diff, diff)
• Regarding the second point as explained on Talk:Jagdish_Tytler#Undue_weightage_to_the_accusations_and_removal_of_the_subjects_statement, the article stated that CBI went to New york to interview the witness, but interestingly the wiki article said nothing about what came out of the interview. Turns out that CBI found that these witness were lying and their statements were fabricated and did not match with other statements/evidence. So obviously including this piece of crucial information will not help in the objective of maitaining this page as an attack page, so this information was deliberately kept out of the BIO, now when I noticed it and added it, this IP is blocking the addition of interview results claiming that it is not notable.

• IMHO, If CBI going to "New York" to interview the witness is a notable event about investigation, then "what came out of that interview" is equally notable to mention in the article. One cannot remove one and claim that the other is relevant.
• IP says "It is not Misplaced Pages's mission to prove him innocent", but point to be noted is that, neither is it Misplaced Pages's mission to prove Tytler a culprit when courts have not charged him.
• The subject Tytler's own statement where he explicitly denies the accusations is needed to be included in the article according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Especially since there is no charge or convictions against him. The weightage to accusations should be equal to his denial of accusations. Far too much weightage is being given to the accusations with many sub-sections and content being added for accusations While the subjects own statement stating his denial is repeatedly blocked from the article. (diff, diff, diff)

--DBigXrayᗙ 16:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - In my view, the first bit, an allegation made in court, should be retained. The last one, which reports part of a CBI investigation should also be retained. (If there is contrary information available about either of them, please feel free to add them.) The middle one, somebody complaining on the TV about the CBI, should go. We report all allegations, subject only to WP:DUE. So, the debate should be about WP:DUE not about WP:BLP. As per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, all allegations about them are admissible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction request

Please correct Tzachi Zamir's birth date to 1967. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:c402:8180:51e6:1103:bfb4:7359 (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Done - Hello IP editor, thank you for pointing this out. I have fixed the apparent mistake in Tzachi Zamir and added a source for the new value. For future changes, please make sure to provide a reliable published source for verification (see WP:V and WP:BLP). GermanJoe (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Boots Riley

More eyes are needed at Boots Riley where a new account is accusing Riley of "supporting murderous dictators" based solely on tweets expressing concern about the crisis in Venezuela. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Owned

There have been repeated attempts to enter a Notable ownings section into this article naming a living person as being on the receiving end of said owning and with the description of the event in question as an "owning" not being supported by the sources given.©Geni (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

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

Request page protection due to tendentious editing by an IP Spoonkymonkey (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (politician)

This article states in the lead that Mr. Larson has advocated decriminalizing child sexual abuse. This looks like a situation where inline citations to reliable sources would be appropriate due to the contentious and value-laden nature of the WP:LABEL "child sexual abuse". Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE multiple reliable published sources are needed; if they cannot be found this part should be left out. Pinging article creator @Yngvadottir: whose article has been modified. 2600:1003:B100:41EB:0:55:82AF:7301 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed on the talk page and was removed under WP:DENY.--Auric talk 12:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The choice of wording is a separate issue from the need for citations to support whatever wording is used in those statements, to bring them into compliance with WP:BLP policy. 2600:1003:B10F:5023:0:4E:C252:C101 (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth DeLong

Elizabeth DeLong is the chair of an academic department caught up in a minor scandal in which someone else in the department, Megan Neely, sent a racist email . Neely appears not to be sufficiently notable (by the standards of WP:PROF) for her own article. Because there is an article on DeLong, but not on Neely, at least one editor has been trying to use DeLong's article as a WP:COATRACK for the Neely scandal. More eyes on DeLong's article would probably be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

100% agreed. If Neely had an article that could be covered there, but it should not be included in DeLong's (and this is the type of thing that we really shouldn't include unless the person at the center is notable, otherwise any article it is attached to becomes a laundry list of complaints). --Masem (t) 14:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

IS it a BLP violation to use "anti-vaccine reporting" as a section header given that she has said sh supports vaccines(the question was raised here)? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It probably should be "Vaccine claims" , like the header below, to be neutral. --Masem (t) 14:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• No, because it is a correct description of what she does, supported by sources. She does not report on vaccine, she engages in anti-vaccine activism under the guise of reporting, as the sources make clear. Masem, the hacking claims are not made as part of her day job, they are incidental. She engages in anti-vaccine reporting, separately and as an aside, she claims that her computer was hacked. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Nope, per JzG. The previous header was the vacuously empty "Vaccines" -- a header which conveyed nothing whatsoever about the content -- and "Vaccine claims" is mostly empty pure false balance. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ajmal Kasab and Zabiuddin Ansari - Terrorist label

• Ajmal Kasab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zabiuddin Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found a couple of articles where the label "terrorist" was being used in Misplaced Pages's voice in the lead. For WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST reasons, I changed them to "militant" (see and ). Neither had any sources in the lead, but there's plenty in the articles to support that they have been called terrorists by some groups. Both of these articles are part of the India-Pakistan conflict and almost certainly covered by WP:ARBPIA. Both of these articles have had some talk page discussion Kasab talk page and Ansari talk page with one editor wanting the terrorist label in Misplaced Pages's voice in the initial description with no attribution. There certainly are sources to say that group XYZ have called them terrorists and I support that, but I'm questioning the straight label, right off the bat. That's contrary to WP:TERRORIST. I'm also concerned that in the discussion on Kasab's page an editor mentioned "Each and every media source in India..." to defend the label which to me is a POV flag. Since this is in two articles, I'd like to get some wider views on how to best proceed here (and several other similar articles that I also removed the terrorist label from the lead). The other involved editors will be notified and mentions left on the article talk pages momentarily. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on these tricky issues. I believe that policy strongly supports your view that calling these individuals terrorists in Misplaced Pages's voice is not acceptable. Just to simplify things slightly, it appears that Kasab has been dead long enough that WP:BLP does not apply to him -- though we should aim for accuracy anyway of course. MPS1992 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution