Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 23:51, 14 March 2019 (→E. J. Levy: agree - NOT problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Nader El-Bizri

Nader El-Bizri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just to request the contributions of experienced Misplaced Pages editors to improve the content of the article and address any flagged issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.54.56 (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We are seeking the intervention of experienced Misplaced Pages editors to improve the article and evaluate whatever issues are raised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.26 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

All the references in the article are properly connected to institutions such universities, BBC, France Culture, academic press; so the issues flagged have been cleared and yet a note is still placed on the article and it therefore needs to be evaluated by experienced Misplaced Pages editors to reach consensus that the issues have been resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.28 (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please can again any experienced Misplaced Pages editors look into improving the article and clearing the issues raised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.15 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Beausoleil

• Bobby Beausoleil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking for a second opinion here. Beausoleil was a very minor (probably non-notable at that point) musician and artist who was convicted of murder as part of the Manson "Family" and has been incarcerated since 1970. He is now going through the parole process. Someone apparently close to Beausoleil has been editing the article to (in my view) give undue weight to his "career" as a musician and artist, and give undue detail in the lede as to the parole process. I've reverted them, but they have responded with further reversions and threats to "report me" on the article talk page. I'm reluctant to get any further into edit-warring threats, and would appreciate uninvolved editors taking a look, and helping to determine where the balance should lie. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody interested in this? The current lede gives a misleading impression of the person's notability, and we have a single but determined editor who is very insistent on maintaining that imbalance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a look, and the editor in question is using some really poor sources. The first source is Tumblr, a blogsite. The second source is a court transcript, which is a blatant BLP vio. The third is AllMusic, which I'm not sure is an RS or not. Four is Tumblr again. Five is "Please kill me.com" (which by the name I can't even take seriously), and six is Bardo Methodology, which also looks questionable as an RS to me. And the last four are all to support a single sentence, which immediately raises a red flag for synthesis. And that's just the first paragraph.

Seven is Rolling Stone. Finally, a really good source. Eight, court transcripts again. (Blatant vio, should be removed immediately.) Nine, LA Times. Also a good source. Does anyone see a pattern developing. A lot of bad or questionable sources used to puff up certain info in the article. I'm pressed for time right now or I would go prune it myself, but if you want to do the honors I will watchlist the article and keep an eye out for a while. (Going a little deeper I see we have court transcripts all over the place, which should be dealt with immediately. Unfortunately, I've got to go for now.) Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm back sooner than I thought, at least for the moment. I took some time to weed out all the court documents and arrest records, and even one inmate locator site. Still don't have time to sit down and properly weed out the info attached to those sites, but it will need mush weeding to bring it even close to BLP standards. The article reads like a narrative. In other words, it reads like a novel about a character rather than an article about a subject. There are still way too many questionable sources, or completely bad sources. Way too much use of self-published sources in serious disproportion to secondary sources. In many cases these self-pubs are used without any secondary source for them to augment, thus serve no purpose but to inflate the article with non-published/peer-reviewed material.

It's also weird to start off with, "Subject is a man incarcerated in a prison." That's not what he is notable for, nor is he notable for being a musician. He's clearly notable as being a convicted murderer, and the article should begin with just that. Everything else about his notability is without a doubt a far second to this, and the balance of the article should reflect that. Once again, I'm outta here for the weekend, so someone else may have to take over cleaning up this article and making it more encyclopedic, because it needs a lot of work. Zaereth (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think major issues remain with the article - if others would like to assist in cleaning it up, they would be more than welcome. In the meantime I've reverted the lede to the relatively more neutral wording it had before this edit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

They certainly do, and when I get some more time, I'll try to help. However, I think the opening sentence is still too off-point. I would start off with the main thing he is notable for as quickly as possible, and add the other information in the expected order. For example, I would begin with: "Bobby Beausoleil is a convicted murderer as part of the Manson murders. He was convicted of killing what's-his-name in wherever, California on such-and-such a date, because of the direction of so-and-so a person.", or something like that. Does that makes sense? Then, once you've summarized the story within a paragraph or two, mention something about his rehab in prison (where, being convicted, he obviously is, hence no need to begin with that), and how his musical talent all ties into that. Once you have a good lede in place, you'll have a basic model of the layout of the rest of the article. (This is also described in the essay I linked above. To see an example of what this looks like, see Basic fighter maneuvers.)

To eliminate the narrative style and switch to expository style, it's in some ways necessary to think of the subject as being a "thing" (noun) that we are defining rather than a person we are describing. The main question to answer is: "What is a Bobby Beausoleil?" That he's a man is obvious. That he's an American is of low importance. That he is tied to the famous Manson killings is paramount. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle and Zaereth

I have been editing this page since 2016. It hasn’t been until recently (when Bobby Beausoleil was granted parole on January 3, 2019) that there has been a sudden interest in this page specifically the first paragraph or two. You imply that in your opinion that someone close to him is editing the article to give undue weight to his career and detail to his parole process. In fact, I’m not some one close to Beausoleil…just someone who feels strongly that he deserves recognition for his body of work. My special interest is in underground, counterculture, and experimental film, music and art. This area has been a passionate interest of mine since I was a teenager and I became aware of Beausoleil’s work through his soundtrack for the film by Kenneth Anger, Lucifer Rising. This film, the soundtrack in particular, is widely renowned by fans who have a similar interest. This work and other works by him are known in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Russia. His music has been released by legitimate and respected music labels in this country, the UK, Sweden, and Italy while his work has been featured in magazines published on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is clear that both of you are oriented to the sphere that Beausoleil should only be known as a murderer. You have both flatly stated this. Be advised that any attempt to prevent this Wiki page from including information about his work as an artist and musician is tantamount to censorship. Removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the[REDACTED] parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work.

You have implied that I have a bias and I could just as easily say the same for you and some of the other editors I have had to deal with the past two months. In my view, you are part of the contignency of people that want to put forth a biased agenda due to his past associations, i.e. Charles Manson, in an effort to sway public opinion. Mnpie1789 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth

Let me make it clear that I believe that Beausoleil’s crime is repugnant. I had no intention of changing any of the page detailing that part of the history. I hoped that other editors who continue to harbor harsh attitudes towards Beausoleil would be willing to meet halfway on the documentation of his history. So far it seems to have been a futile hope.

You are absolutely right, and thank you for pointing out to me what the correct Misplaced Pages criteria for sourcing information. Honestly, since other editors who have contributed to the page over the years have relied on references to the cielodrive website, which is almost exclusively a repository for court records, police records, and other public records, that I could use it as reference. It was never questioned in the past years, so I assumed it was allowed.

There is no pattern developing with the sources. Ghmyrtle was very insistent that the first paragraph was not properly sourced, so I went out of my way to give as many references as possible. I didn’t realize that would be cause for alarm or cause further issues. Since there are issues with using a blog that I found that has lots of well referenced articles on it, I have no problem getting rid of those and putting the actual referenced book/article/interview, etc. You may be right that the page should simply be gutted. It could simply be left that way, with all improperly sourced material discarded, or abandoned entirely. Be careful what you wish for.

As for you having an issue with PleaseKillMe.com because of the name, that reflects unmitigated bias. The website is named after a best selling book, Please Kill Me, which is a well-known definitive oral history about NYC punk by the writers, Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain, that has been in print for 20 years. Their website that I have referenced is considered their home where they post their recent articles as well as overseeing the other writers who contribute articles about art, music and pop culture. I highly recommend you look up Legs and Gillian’s Misplaced Pages pages to verify this. I used their review of Beausoleil’s last album to show that a well-established writers/rock journalists were behind it. If that isn’t considered a reliable source, then I’m at a loss as to what is.

I’m going to follow your suggestion and clean up the sourcing on the page, and eliminate the “narrative” language bits in the text. Thanks for your input. It was mostly on point. Mnpie1789 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So far as I'm concerned, there is no problem over including sourced information on Beausoleil's musical and artistic activities, both before and during his incarceration, in the article. I'm aware of his activities before he was jailed, in Anger's film, etc.. However, the balance in the opening two paragraphs must clearly identify that the main reason for his notability - in fact, the only reason he has an article here at all - is that he is a murderer, not an artist. I agree with Zaereth that the wording of the lede needs to be improved, but for the time being I've reverted to the longstanding earlier version which is far preferable to Mnpie1789's unbalanced version. The sourcing in the rest of the article should be improved - though I have no problems over using Allmusic.com in this case, or Pleasekillme.com (obnoxious name) - but there is no good reason to change the balance of the lede in a way which gives undue importance to his artistic endeavors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of his activities before he was jailed were him being a member of the Grass Roots (before they became Love), the founder/lead of The Orkustra who is considered the official band of The Diggers and played with many famous bands such as Steve Miller Band, Buffalo Springfield and Charlatans at various shows in the bay area, and working on the Lucifer Rising soundtrack with another band he founded called the Magick Powerhouse of Oz in 1967 in exchange for Kenneth Anger wanting him to appear in the short film as an actor. Those are just some examples to show that he was an accomplished musician and artist before his crime and indeed shows that it is your opinion (which is unbalanced) that the only reason he has an article here is because he is a murderer. As for the longstanding version you are referring to that you edited, it has only been up for almost two months. A longstanding version would be my edit that goes as far back as 2018. With my edit there is a proper balance. It clearly shows the facts that he was a musician and multi-disciplined artist before prison and then it goes into his crime and association with Manson and the Manson family. Again, this is tantamount to censorship. As I said before, removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the[REDACTED] parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work. BTW, Please Kill Me is what Richard Hell wrote on his shirt before a gig with Television and he wound up giving it to Richard Lloyd to wear. You may find it obnoxious, but it's part of NYC punk history and should have no bearing here. Mnpie1789 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/the-best-stories-from-please-kill-me-768896

OK, maybe not longstanding, but certainly earlier - now clarified. Just to clarify further... I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in trying to "vilify" or "defame" this person - in whom I have almost no interest of any sort. What I am interested in achieving is an article that meets the criteria of WP:BLP and other guidelines (such as, yet again, WP:HYPOCORISM) and presents a balanced rather than unbalanced assessment of his life and notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The WP:AIV case that Mnpie1789 made against me has been rejected. So, do any other editors here think that the best way forward, given Mnpie's intransigence, would be some form of censure against that editor (for edit-warring, for example), or some form of protection or topic-banning for that article? Or is there a better way forward? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support a topic-ban for Mnpie1789 - seems to be a SPA. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll agree with this assessment. I just took a look at their contributions, which are solely dedicated to about three or four people, number one of which by far is Beausoleil and his soundtrack. (Note: Anyone can have a soundtrack. All you have to do is pay a studio to make one for you. I personally know a studio owner and many people with soundtracks who've never gotten famous.) By some of the edit summaries that seem to indicate intimate knowledge of these subjects, I'm wondering if a little COI is also happening? Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll start with, I have heard of the book, Please Kill Me. It's what the NY Times describes as: "Story of Punk: More the Ugly Gossip Than the Music's Impact... Please Kill Me, named after a T-shirt once worn by a member of Television, doesn't have much to say about the music itself. It's a book of gossip, usually from the participants themselves, about couplings, petty crime, hustles, pratfalls, snubs, traffic mishaps, fistfights, knife fights and overdoses." So, no, I didn't look too closely at the website. Upon further examination, the site actually looks pretty well-written, but I'm still not sure how they stack up to other RSs in terms of editorial oversight and other factors, because I don't have time to dig that deep.

No one's looking to censor anything. In fact, I wish people would actually look up the definition of the word before using it. WP:UNDUE works both ways. The article should be in balance with the things he is notable for. This doesn't mean an equal share of perceived good or bad, but the things he is notable for in proportion to the scale of that notability. (For example, we wouldn't expect an unfair amount of bad info in Mother Teresa's article due to the high proportion of good stuff she's known for, nor would we expect an unfair amount of good info in Jesse James' article, who is clearly notable foremost as being a train robber.) Let's face it, he would have to reach the level of Mick Jagger for that to outweigh the notability of such a high-profile crime as the Manson murders, the most famous murders of the last century. I grew up watching the movies and documentaries. I'm also a huge fan of music, particularly rock, metal, and punk, and I've never heard of this guy outside of his association with Manson. And a quick search of reliable sources seems to confirm that. Even in sources like Rolling Stone, his involvement with the Manson case is the top thing they talk about. The4 article, both the lede and body, should reflect that. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. This isn't a matter of how we want Beausoleil to be known. It's about trying to describe how he is known, relying on independent (secondary and tertiary) reliable, non-fringe sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Elvera Sanchez

Elvera Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography says Sammy Davis Jr was her only child then end of article says she was survived by her daughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.0.168 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times obituary in the references backs up that she was survived by a daughter, so she had at least two children ('survived by' leaves open the possibility that there were children who predeceased her). To avoid confusion, I've removed the Children parameter from the infobox - we don't know for certain how many there were so unless someone can find a cite for it, it's best to omit the detail. Her famous son is mentioned enough in the article, so we don't lose anything by not listing him in the infobox. Neiltonks (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no conflict here based on the NYTimes obit. Also, keep in mind, this is definitely not a BLP (she's been dead for nearly 20 years). --Masem (t) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

In Black and White: The Life of Sammy Davis Junior the book notes that Ramona was raised by her aunt, Julia and as such wouldn't be considered a child of her mother, like Sammy Davis Junior.--Auric talk 11:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Gabe Hudson

• Gabe Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A bio turned into a press release, filled with promotional blurbs. More eyes on this, please. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've rolled back to a stable earlier version, which looks a lot more acceptable in my opinion. Ritchie333 16:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ritchie333. There was more likely to be an edit war if I'd done so. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sharad Tripathi

Derogatory article mentioning Cow belt, whether Indian govt has spine, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnp1 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up somewhat, and I've copy-edited it for grammar. It desperately needs improving as it's largely unreferenced, but my knowledge of Indian politics is sketchy at best so I'm not comfortable attempting it myself. Neiltonks (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Lee Nailon

• Lee Nailon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lee Nailon (talk · contribs)

Problematic edits by eponymous account. Unsourced personal content, including some with WP:BLP issues that may need to be rev/deleted. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hank Johnson's Guam gaffe in lead

In 2010, Hank Johnson expressed fears about Guam capsizing during a Congressional hearing, should his comment be mentioned in the lead paragraph of his entry? The gaffe is currently covered in the article body, but not the lead. Here's the edit in question. Nblund 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No. The lede should be a quick overview of what the subject is. It's a poor place to put what is obviously (to me, at least) a joke, or maybe a slip or a misunderstanding (although I doubt it). Such things look completely out of place in the lede, just as I would not expect Dan Quayle's potato gaffe to be in the lede of his article nor John F Kennedy's jelly-donut flub to be in the lede of his. Funny as they are, they're just too insignificant compared to the other things they're notable for. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Moyer

In the wiki page on Jamie Moyer, the section on his personal life implies that he is still married to Karen Moyer. Karen and Jamie were divorced in 2017. I'm a friend of Jamie's. He has expressed the desire to see his personal information updated to reflect reality but has no idea how to do it. I told him I would try. I can't find a reference online to the Moyers' divorce but I know it is true. You might try contacting him.24.17.11.63 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)M A Ganong

Sorry but that's going to be tough. It seems the couple have led a full and happy life, and no publications want to talk about their separation. Misplaced Pages people don't normally contact real life people, because it makes real life people feel paranoid :) MPS1992 (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate situation to have outdated information in the article, but all information has to be published somewhere else first before it can be added to Misplaced Pages. If Moyer is still in the public eye and gives interviews, or articles are written about him, maybe his marital status is mentioned and those articles can then be used as a source to update the Misplaced Pages article. The source doesn't have to be online, so for example a newspaper article can be used as a source even if there is no online link to it. -kyykaarme (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I made a note of this on the article talk page. I'm not sure what else we can do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Jose Miguel Bernardo

I am Professor Jose M Bernardo. Years ago, someone created a biography on me José-Miguel Bernardo I have now an ongoing argument against ISBA. I am fighting legally their reasons to exclude me: I consider their action to be seriously libelous and a violation of my honorability, and I do not want their original decision (never supported by any form of legal jury) to be mentioned in my bibliography. I have edited out that paragraph twice, and someone (who obvously holds a grudge on me) has added it again. If this cannot be stopped, I would rather have my entire biography removed from Misplaced Pages (I guess I am entitled to that). I am editing out this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseMBernardo (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@JoseMBernardo: I don't think the information should be included, as it is only sourceable to a publicly visible letter from the ISBA, and without a secondary source discussing it, the biographies of living persons policy states "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". I think it behooves us to leave this information out. I don't think it's likely your article will be deleted entirely, as your papers for Bayesian statistics are widely cited on Google Scholar. Ritchie333 12:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. That's a clear violation of BLP policy, and thanks to Ritchie for helping out. One thing I will mention is that you have a clear WP:Conflict of interest with this article, and as such, policy deems that you should avoid editing it yourself. Instead, please ask others to make the changes for you, either on the article's talk page or, in cases such as this, bring them here. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who has twice reverted Prof Bernardo's deletion of the ISBA judgement (but not the originator of that part of the entry) I would like first to point out that contrary to Prof Bernardo's assertion, I do not hold any "grudge" against him. I am aware of him purely through his outstanding work on Bayesian analysis (which, incidentally, needs to be better reflected in this entry). My reasons for the reversion was that (a) the ISBA judgement is a matter of publicly announced fact; (b) the reversions appeared to have been initiated by someone with an apparent WP:Conflict of interest, which Prof Bernardo has now confirmed. I would argue for the reference to the ISBA judgement being retained, but supplemented with the additional information supplied by Prof Bernardo concerning his rejection of the judgement and recourse to legal remedy. I would be happy to make this addition to avoid any suggestion of WP:Conflict of interest against Prof Bernardo. Robma (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Using the ISBA judgment as the source of this information is a clear and blatant violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's no different than using court documents, birth certificates, or other public records. If you can find this info in reliable, secondary sources, then that would be a different matter, but such primary documents should be removed from an article immediately on first site, without discussion. The subject was right to request their removal, even if they did not know the right way of going about it. Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Jérôme Rothen

I'm unsure if this is the correct place to address this issue, apologies if it isn't. Article on Jérôme_Rothen is subject to (at the moment) minor vandalism related to the recent PSG-ManUtd champions league match. Patrice_Evra referred to him in a disparaging way that has gone viral, i believe the french version of the article has been locked and it might be worth putting a temporary lock on the article until the fuss dies down.Zaq12wsx (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaq12wsx:The way to ask for articles to be protected is by going to WP:RFPP and following the instructions there. However in this case I'm not sure protection is actually needed. There has been some vandalism but it's always been reverted within a few minutes and this type of fan-driven vandalism usually dies down after a few days. Neiltonks (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sword and Scale

Sword and Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some long-term edit warring going on at Sword and Scale between MBoudet (and some IPs) and Satani over a section of the article that MBoudet claims is defamatory. If MBoudet is who he claims to be, then it's clear they have a COI (see WP:COIN#Sword and Scale); however, his BLP concerns probably shouldn't have been laughed off in edit sums by Satani per WP:BLPREMOVE. There's been no article talk page discussion about this at all, so it might be a good idea to for some others to get involved and sort through this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly problems, with synth and POV wording if nothing else. I've trimmed it back for now, and I'm not sure how reliable we should regard Mamamia as being when it comes to very strong BLP claims. I'll do some reading on this to try and get a handle on things. - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bilby: Thanks for taking a look. I thought your version was an acceptable one, at least until this could be sorted. However, much of the controversy section you removed has been re-added by a new account. I've reverted back to your version and will encourage others to try and sort through this before re-adding. I did request WP:PP so as to try and stop this kind of thing from happening, but it was declined. Would you mind taking a look at the re-added content? Personally, it seems a bit too detailed and WP:UNDUE for an article about the podcast, though it might acceptable in a article about the creator himself. Mentioning how it impacted podcast ratings, etc. is probably OK, but care needs to be taken with the phrasing and the reliability of mamamia.com as a reliable source for so much detail needs to be discussed. It would be better to have more sources corroborating these kind of claims in my opinion since only one source covering this gives the impression that it might haven't been as much of a controversy as is being made out. Have you been able to find any other information on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bilby: Hi, thanks for creating this discussion. I'm the original editor of the Sword and Scale Controversy section and it is unfortunate, but expected for debate to ensue when editing for BLP. While the authenticity of Mamamia as a journalistic source may be in question, the controversy involving Mr. Boudet is indeed ongoing and is likely to continue to spawn new articles in the coming days. Besides this, however, I've taken to compile a list of other sources and claims that discuss past and current controversy revolving around Boudet and his podcast. Furthermore, in relation to the wording of my edits in the article, I do see I neglected to write in-line with the podcast itself and may have referenced the host's name too frequently. Make note though that I have no personal quarrels with Boudet and simply wish to list the claims as I do see criticism of the podcast itself worthy of mention. ACollegeThinker (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@ACollegeThinker: This thread was started by me in attempt to try and sort this out and address the apparent concerns about it being raised by MBoudet. Content about the "controversy" seems to have been originally added in July 2018 with this edit by Satani, and MBoudet and Satani have been edit warring over the content on multiple occasions since then. Since your account was only created last month, I'm assuming your reference to yourself as the "original editor" means you were not aware of these previous edits. My concerns about the Mammamia source (see WP:RSN#Mamamia.com.au for more) are that it might not exert the type of rigorous editorial control over its content than a more traditional news source would and it might be a WP:BLPSPS for content such as this. I tried googling for other sources, but I haven't been able to find anything which would unquestionablely be considered reliable for this type of content. Stuff like this from The Independent are more blurbs than not, while this is an Op-Ed piece and really not usable at all even though it was published in The New York Times. It would be very helpful to find an article on this from a well-established reliable source (more than one would be better) which shows that this is not WP:UNDUE and worthy of mentioning in some more detail the article and worthy of a separate section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

To get my 2 cents in: Not sure about edit warring as such, it was clear that MBoudet wouldn't want something negative on his thing's Misplaced Pages page. I didn't care much, but thought it was important to add it (even if the cite wasn't from something rock-solid like, I don't know, the NYT or similar), but it was the COI that tipped me to keep re-adding it. Satani (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there were some issues with MBoudet's editing of the article; at the same time, the repeated back and forth reverting would have likely led to someone (possibly both of you) getting a stern warning or even a block if things had ended up at WP:AN3. It would've been better, at least in my opinion, to at least explicitly claim an exemption to 3RR per WP:3RRNO or seek assistance at WP:BLPN or WP:COIN after the first couple of reverts than continuing to go back and forth and leaving "LOL", etc. edit sums. The fact that the edit warring carried over to your user talk page also probably was an indication to seek assistance from others. Anyway, it's possible as you say that he just didn't want anything negative in the article; however, when someone starts removing content about themselves for BLP concerns (even if the content is sourced), it might be better to be cautious and get other opinions. Doing so might stop a potentially serious mistake from being made or repeated, but it might also establish a strong consensus that there is no BLP violation at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the linked article, the main problem I see with it is that there is no way for us to know whether Hannah Blackiston is a staff journalist at Mamamia: the website provides little information about this writer on her page. In this case I'd lean towards unreliability, and avoid relying on this particular Mamamia article for contentious BLP claims. feminist (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth Blum, Please help me I have no experience with Misplaced Pages and need help to get the article right.

Please help me with...

<Kenneth Blum is listed by Quackwatch as a promoter of questionable health products. and Doctors writing for Quackwatch have questioned the scientific credibility of the genetic tests that Blum markets.-->

I have no experience with Misplaced Pages and need help to get the article right. Kenneth Blum is a living persons and according to your guidelines high-quality sources should be used and any material must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Recently there seems to have been postings that are not neutral, or verifiable.

Ref {2} and {7} refer to the same article cited on the Quackwatch website. The website Quackwatch is endorsed by a group of naysayers who call themselves “ Skeptics.” Stephen Barrett and his board of 20 are known for many non –scientific attacks on alternative medical approaches including vitamins and minerals or any nutritional supplement. Barrett appears to have no understanding of basic scientific exploration having had no experience in the field. Therefore, any statements cited in this Misplaced Pages page must be read with caution and dismissed based on unsupported claims. Stephen Barrett is a self- proclaimed promoter of unscientific bias against all alternative medicine. Most experienced scientists and practitioners of alternative medicine and traditional medicine oppose Quackwatch and Barrett. Donna Ladd, a journalist with the Village Voice, says that "Barrett relies mostly on negative research even to the point of rejecting positive studies.” Throughout life Linus Pauling winner of two Nobel Prizes, was also called “the world’s biggest Quack,” and even Albert Einstein stated that Pauling’s research was too complicated for him to understand. MargMad (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargMad (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quackwatch may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Bob Garfield

• Bob Garfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know what's going on here, some kind of edit warring over marital status going back to June last year, ongoing today . ☆ Bri (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note, some of those diffs are me; I'm not sure what the truth is, and am taking this off my watchlist. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau

Hi. Maybe a simple question. The Mary Kay Letourneau BLP specifies the age of her child victim as 12 or 13 at earliest point. If you gather the sources, you have about a 50-50 split on this question. Half say 12, half say 13. Based on the principles of BLP, do we specify the age as 13 (the most clearly substantiated age), or present it as "12 or 13" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents is to say "12 or 13". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone who understands what "conservative" writing is, please review my appraisal here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#age_of_victim

Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to call editors experienced with BLP to the breaking news about Tucker Carlson's comments from a couple years ago on a call-in show. An editor at the article talk page said that Carlson "is a public figures, which negates WP:BLP concerns." I am, of course, not defending the comments, but I think some context is missing, the way it is written now isn't optimal, and we should still presume BLP applies to that page. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't quote a fragment out of context. O3000 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking the section that was removed but since re-added from , a question to ask is "why is this important"? One instance of making comments on a shock jock radio show doesn't seem to hold much weight at this point. If there are lingering effects of the comments, then it is appropriate, but just because these statements made in the past have arisen now and a few sources talked about them, doesn't mean it is appropriate to included. RECENTISM and all that. If the comments are still the subject of news in the week, then maybe they should be added. --Masem (t) 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If one instance, I'd agree. Appears that he made these comments over many instances over years. I removed it at first because of the sourcing. But, it's now hitting RS. If someone makes their living making high profile, negative comments about other folks, their own glass walls may be exposed. O3000 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Its being repeated by those sources and like a lot of instances recently where the MSM has had to walk back outlandish reports that they gobbled up from less than trustworthy minor sources, its best to wait a bit to see where this goes.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We'd need source(s) to point out that these have been comments about misogyny over the years; as editors, we'd not be able to compile those without such summation sources and say "he's been saying these over many years". That said, I'm just watching the news bubbles and this is gaining legs, including a story about advertisers looking to pull from his show, etc. It's on a trend to be a "career-affecting" situation which is appropriate for inclusion, just wait for the news cycle to work through before including. --Masem (t) 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the WP:RECENTISM argument and that we should wait and see how this all plays out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Patience will out. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This incident should definitely be mentioned. GiantSnowman 15:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark Foster Gage

Mark Foster Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This whole article has just been turned into an advert for this person. Very little sourcing done for the majority of the article, struggling to see actual notability here. Equine-man (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Equine-man: agreed - I have culled the article. GiantSnowman 15:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mei Melancon

Hi. I have reviewed this article and find it to be really poorly sourced and primarily self-promotional. Moreover, the individual in question is hardly notable in any way. Frankly, she is little more than an extra. I would nominate for deletion. Coffee312 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You were answered last time you raised the matter here: see WP:BEFORE for a guide to proposing the article for deletion. It's unlikely that anyone else will do the work for you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Biff Rose

Maybe some of you can have a look at this article and its recent history, and make a judgment on the content and the sourcing. Thank you all so much, Drmies (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Brody_Dalle

(specifically Brody Dalle#Personal life

Brody Dalle's age is stated when she met Tim Armstrong, but Tim Armstrong's age isn't given. I have added that I believe he was 30 in 1995 (I did this last month and someone removed it). I think this is important information for both newer fans and older fans to be aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.22.176 (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It's not your opinion on what information is significant about the personal life of a living person, but whether reliable sources say that a particular fact is significant. Do they? MPS1992 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Harris Bokhari

Needs some scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with Harris Bokhari#Muslim Association of Britain activism. I see that one source on the issue of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is to the website of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, which I don't think is a suitable source for a BLP. I've just been dealing with an issue involving combining two sources to make an argument here and which is how I came upon Bokhari's article. Note that I have no sympathy for Bokhari's position on Ahamdiyya. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Contentious claims need strong WP:RS sourcing. "Workers Liberty" does not meet that requirement. Collect (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

List of American State and Local Politicians Convicted of Crimes

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

The list of politicians listed as having been convicted of crimes in California has the same exact names on it as the list for Arkansas. If you click on the names, you will see they are ARKANSAS politicians from their descriptions; therefore, it seems that there is no list for California, which is what I was looking for when I came across this serious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpecheur (talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this major edit caused the problem. Might be worth looking through to make sure it didn't screw up anything else. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

In January 2019, Carter hoped Cory Booker to run for president.
This quickly got removed by another editor, citing "fails noteworthiness test" as the reason. Please help. I have tried to resolve the edit-dispute by:-

• Leaving a message at that editor's Talk Page;

• Using the Request for Comment function at Politics.

On 2nd thought, "Carter hoped Booker run for president" is the correct grammar, thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Both versions are ungrammatical. And this is not obviously noteworthy anyway. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/13/jimmy-carter-trump-1207385 Tony85poon (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon now blocked as sockmaster. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

<deleted>

WP:DUCK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd block as clear DUCK but I'm not allowed to block socks. Please consider WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 10:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Already done by MrX . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (journalist)

The article Jesse Brown (journalist) seems highly reliant on Twitter as a source, particularly for its "criticism" section. It looks like an editor with a personal grudge against Brown is using the article as a form of retaliation. Could editors please review it? 75.119.247.233 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick peek, but there is way too much use of twitter, which is not usually a reliable source within itself. Way too much use of blogs and op/ed pieces from newspapers like the Globe and Mail or Huffpost. That section reads like a gossip column of random opinions cherry picked and nestled together. Zaereth (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is 100% unusable for sourcing about criticism per BLPSPS. --Masem (t) 02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Twitter should be used sparingly, and only to cite the article's subjects own opinions and nothing else per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If those opinions are genuinely important, they will appear in secondary sources. Ritchie333 11:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Clayton Jennings

Another tricky article, where the sexual misconduct allegations, at least some of them, are better sourced than the sections about him as a possibly notable person. This needs some attention from an article writer (I did some scrapping), and esp. the last section needs attention--is the content properly verified to reliable sources? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, article creation was by copying from Simple English wikipedia, and the Simple English article was started by an SPI who hasn't edited since. valereee (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And yeah, once the dreck sources are removed, all that's left is the controversy, and even that's not sourced very well. He's literally in the MIDDLE of the biggest news of his life and it's getting coverage only in ChristianPost.com and CharismaNews.com and GospelHerald.com valereee (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, valereee. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright then. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clayton Jennings. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

E. J. Levy

• E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I've been notified that an article purportedly about me contains both misinformation and bias E.J. Levy, despite efforts to balance it by Misplaced Pages editors (Partice Starr, Sarah Sloane, Hedgielaar, and others). I would like to request that this article be either removed or balanced, and that factual inaccuracies (especially malicious and inaccurate mischaracterizations of my forthcoming novel, The Cape Doctor) be removed. The site appears to be being used by a few editors (eg, Wallyfromdilbert) to attack me and my book, and to carry on an argument from Twitter.

It is my understanding that Misplaced Pages articles must conform to the following principles:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

Wallyfromdilbert, among other editors, have repeatedly violated two of these three Misplaced Pages tenets in regard to the E.J. Levy page, despite attempts to correct these problems by means of edits and despite several appeals to Misplaced Pages editors and administrators. I would be grateful if the more balanced and accurate edits of Patrice Starr, hedgielamar, and Sarah Sloane, and other editors were protected against what seem evidently malicious rollbacks.

Wallyfromdilbert's edits do *not* reflect a Neutral Point Of View; rather they have repeatedly and selectively quoted from articles to attack my novel, The Cape Doctor, editing *out* quoted material from those same articles that would offer a more balanced perspective on the book and scholarly debate (see recent additions/edits by Patrice Starr and Hedgielamar for evidence of this; Starr and hedgie have added quotes that provide balance, but those edits have been repeatedly "rolled back" by Wallyfromdilbert and others so as to *bias* the page and its representation of my work);

Additionally, certain claims in the Misplaced Pages article about me and my book are *not* Verifiable, because they are factually incorrect. Specifically the claim that my forthcoming novel, The Cape Doctor, refers to James Miranda Barry as a "heroine" is simply wrong, as anyone who has read the novel can attest. The Misplaced Pages editors making this claim have *not* read my novel and are either speculating or quoting speculation, despite my public statements to the contrary to the press. In fact, as I have said publicly in Bustle, my novel refers to Barry as "he," "she," and a "hero"; I do not at any point refer to James Barry as a heroine. So this is both inaccurate and unverifiable. Nor is my novel "transphobic," as these editors want to claim. These claims are hostile speculation and mischaracterization, and should be removed. As my public statement in Bustle's article makes clear, neither I nor my novel is transphobic (quoting me from that article would support this assertion); claims to the contrary are based on malicious speculation and projection (such claims cannot be based on the novel, as the novel has not been released).

Despite repeated efforts to correct these inaccurate claims, these editors (Wallyfromdilbert among others) have maliciously mischaracterized me and my book. I hope that Misplaced Pages will put a stop to that misuse of Misplaced Pages. If it is not possible to stop this biased and inaccurate editing, I would request that the page be removed. Thank you. EJLevywriter (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the sources are opinion pieces, speculating about the book using words like "led critics to believe", "if that is the case", "appears to misgender". These are not reliable sources about the book itself but mere speculation about something that has not been released yet. The only reliable report comes from the Guardian, which in addition to detailing the twitter debate notes that no one really knows how Barry identified, saying, "But whether he had always ‘felt male’ during his earlier female years (he changed identity at age 20), who knows?... Much of what we 'know' about him is really the Barry myth – that is, culturally constructed legend, based on hearsay, fiction and fiction-inflected biography." I think it needs to be toned down to reflect the twitter debate, but not to speculate on the novel itself. (It should also be changed to perfect perspective rather than future perspective so that it won't sound weird after the book is released, plus that looks more like we're not running an ad.) Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Zaereth, and add that the encyclopedic value of a twitter debate is dubious. A sentence or two may be due, but nothing more until far better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution