Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
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:
| ||
Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A number of editors are insisting in including in the article Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi the statement of fact that Qadhi is a Salafi based on the following sources:
- Grewal, Zareena (2013-12-02). Islam Is a Foreign Country: American Muslims and the Global Crisis of Authority. NYU Press. p. 330. ISBN 9781479800889.
today, American Salafis, such as Shaykh Yasir Qadhi of the AlMaghrib institute are offered as the solution.
- Elliott, Andrea (2011-03-17). "Why Yasir Qadhi Wants to Talk About Jihad". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
In the spectrum of the global Salafi movement, Qadhi, who is 36, speaks for the nonmilitant majority.... He came to identify with political Salafiya, denouncing secular democracies and declaring Sufis and Shia "heretics."
I dont dispute that these are reliable sources. However, the subject of the article has himself said, more recently than either of these sources, that he is not a Salafi. Here he writes in April 2014, on a website he operates, that
Because of this, I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed in the earlier section. ... While after more than two decades of continuous research, I do subscribe to the Atharī creed
There are other instances (Feb 2013) of the subject saying, for example, Well I guess 20 years ago when I was a teenager I definitely would have self identified as a Salafi Muslim but over the course of the last decade or so I’ve kind of sort of grown out of the movement now.” Given the subjects self-identification as no longer being a Salafi, can the Wikipedia article say that he is one? nableezy - 05:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Recent self-identification trumps an older characterisation by someone else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Let's just stick to Wikipedia guidelines on the reliability and use of sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, of course -- but I'd suggest that you know less about Qadhi's religion than does Qadhi himself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn’t this violate the rule that reliable third-party sources are more preferable? Moreover, when looking at WP:SELFPUB, I see that articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources. An identification like this is a huge deal for the article: I prefer to stick to the third-party sources until something better shows up. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC).
- Yes, let's stick to neutral third-party sources. There was a consensus on this page until a few days ago an unregistered user, and possibly a sockpuppet (no I don't mean you, Nomoskedasticity), began pushing a YouTube clip and a blog as evidence in place of what in almost every instance on Wikipedia we consider better sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- The relevant guideline here is WP:BLPSPS which specifically allow self-published sources provided they are from the subject of the article. Also relevant, even though this isnt strcitly a category, is WP:CAT/R, which says Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. We should not be saying that somebody follows some religious ideology when that person flatly says they do not. nableezy - 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, let's stick to neutral third-party sources. There was a consensus on this page until a few days ago an unregistered user, and possibly a sockpuppet (no I don't mean you, Nomoskedasticity), began pushing a YouTube clip and a blog as evidence in place of what in almost every instance on Wikipedia we consider better sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn’t this violate the rule that reliable third-party sources are more preferable? Moreover, when looking at WP:SELFPUB, I see that articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources. An identification like this is a huge deal for the article: I prefer to stick to the third-party sources until something better shows up. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC).
- Yes, of course -- but I'd suggest that you know less about Qadhi's religion than does Qadhi himself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Let's just stick to Wikipedia guidelines on the reliability and use of sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Glancing at the sources and articles: I suspect there are cultural issues (if not outright cultural disputes) here given how very differently Athari and Salafi movement present the same and similar information (which looks like very obvious NPOV violations). I don't keep up, but do any ArbCom findings apply?
If we don't have any detailed history to sort this out, I think we need to present that he's been past identified as Salafi, and he currently self-identifies more Athari. We need to be extremely careful what, if anything, we put in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I dont think you even need the passive for his past identification as a Salafi, he says he was a Salafi. He says he was a Salafi for 20 years in that youtube link (I didnt listen to the whole thing as I honestly dont have the patience for an hour and a half of a religious lecture I was just trying to find where in it he says he is no longer a Salafi as the IP just cited the whole video link). I think it can say he was a Salafi though he no longer identifies as a Salafi and follows the Athari movement. nableezy - 16:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Athari is a school of theology whereas Salafi is a modern reformist movement. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. i.e one can claim to be Salafi and Athari at the same time. So if Qadhi claims that he follows Atharism it does not necessarily imply that he has left the Salafi movement. Do we have any explicit evidence that Qadhi has stated that he is not a Salafi? I ask because one of the quotes above merely states that "I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed above...". Not being associated with a particular trend of salafism does not appear to be the same as "not being a Salafi". Also, one of the links provided above is from Feb 2013 whereas the book Islam Is a Foreign Country: American Muslims and the Global Crisis of Authority was published in Dec 2013 so seems to be a more current source. Saheeh Info 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- "I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed above" -- this is sufficient to make it inappropriate for the article to include the passage "Qadhi is a Salafi", which is what we had [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Athari is a school of theology whereas Salafi is a modern reformist movement. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. i.e one can claim to be Salafi and Athari at the same time. So if Qadhi claims that he follows Atharism it does not necessarily imply that he has left the Salafi movement. Do we have any explicit evidence that Qadhi has stated that he is not a Salafi? I ask because one of the quotes above merely states that "I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed above...". Not being associated with a particular trend of salafism does not appear to be the same as "not being a Salafi". Also, one of the links provided above is from Feb 2013 whereas the book Islam Is a Foreign Country: American Muslims and the Global Crisis of Authority was published in Dec 2013 so seems to be a more current source. Saheeh Info 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- So we're accepting Youtube as a reliable source now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- YouTube isnt the source, its the medium. What we are doing is accepting Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi as being a reliable source on the religious beliefs of Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. nableezy - 21:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Quite. I would point out it doesnt have to be a 'one or other' situation, it would be perfectly fine to write he used to be a salafi (sourced reliably to third party & himself) but has since declared he no longer shares their views (sourced reliably to himself). A self-published source is considered reliable *absent contradictory information* for information about the subject. He says he was a salafi, the sources used that say he is a salafi are in the past, no contradiction. Now if you had a source that was current saying he is still a salafi, then there would be an issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand now; I favor keeping both sources (the old sources were deleted in the disputed edits which was part of the problem) but viewing YouTube as a "medium" makes sense, especially since the issue with YouTube is that the uploaders are not always reliable; that shouldn't be the case here since his speech hasn't been cut up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Quite. I would point out it doesnt have to be a 'one or other' situation, it would be perfectly fine to write he used to be a salafi (sourced reliably to third party & himself) but has since declared he no longer shares their views (sourced reliably to himself). A self-published source is considered reliable *absent contradictory information* for information about the subject. He says he was a salafi, the sources used that say he is a salafi are in the past, no contradiction. Now if you had a source that was current saying he is still a salafi, then there would be an issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- YouTube isnt the source, its the medium. What we are doing is accepting Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi as being a reliable source on the religious beliefs of Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. nableezy - 21:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- So we're accepting Youtube as a reliable source now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thomas Pogge
Thomas Pogge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/yale-ethics-professor?utm_term=.nkyLVbV1y0#.pcB9YoYQr5
The article describes at length the allegations of sexual harassment against Thomas Pogge over the last twenty years. Christa Mercer, Martha Nussbaum, Fernanda Lopez Aguilar and other sources, whose names are not mentioned in the article, publicly speak out on these issues. Additionally, we are provided with two PDFs, one stating that Lopez Aguilar signed an agreement with Yale (Pogge's employer), so she would withdraw her complaints for a compensation of 2000 $. The other is a copy of the civil rights complained she failed entailing emails Pogge sent her, which support the allegations. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2840120-NDA-Yale-FLopez.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2840101-Yale-Title-IX-Complaint.html#document/
We've been already discussing the quality of the buzzfeed article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Pogge
I, personally, consider this article to be a trustworthy source, allowing us to state the following: "In May 2016 Pogge was publicly accused of sexual harassment. Former students of his claim that he manipulated students "to gain sexual advantage." In a secret agreement in 2010, Yale university paid a student $ 2,000, so she would drop her charges. In October 2015 a federal civil rights complaint was filed against Pogge. The investigation of this complaint is still pending."
141.2.134.77 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yale Daily News also has an article. http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/05/21/philosophy-professor-accused-of-sexual-harassment/ They have looked at affidavits, and so forth. A cautious approach might (at a minimum) describe what Yale has decided so far, as reported by both Buzzfeed and Yale Daily News. Fanyavizuri (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- The YDN article is based on the Buzzfeed article and is not a separate reliable source, and on complaints made by the complainant only. It is, alas, not a reliable source for any inference concerning the accuracy of the complaint, or of any actions which might ensue. I note the Rolling Stone "rape article" had "affidavits" which turned out to have substantial problems, so Wikipedia requires that we act very conservatively where major damage to a loving person might ensue. Buzzfeed has its own problems [2] "Buzzfeed was the least trusted news outlet in a Pew poll on trust in journalism", [3] " Still...its BuzzFeed. I'm sure if the content is good enough the information is on a reliable source", so it would clearly be far better to use a better source than Buzzfeed where contentious claims about living persons are concerned. One might also note the problematic use of Buzzfeed as a source in the famed "GamerGate" contretemps. Any "news article" which has "Can someone fight tirelessly to balance the inequities of global power while at the same time abusing his own power? And can a discipline built on the quest to describe a just society — and suffering from a major diversity problem — afford to ignore these issues? " has become an editorial column, and thus not usable for claims of fact on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that Buzzfeed has the problems you outline. Fanyavizuri (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, in addition I have looked at the documents the article provides. Due to them being taken out of context, they are unverifiable. Jadeslair (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Well -- an IP has reverted the use of "editorial column" to "News article" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Pogge&diff=721453425&oldid=721450665 . I guess some folks do not understand that where editorial opinions are clearly expressed, that the article is editorial in nature. Collect (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Time to request semi protection? Fanyavizuri (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
For those not following along on the talk page, there is another article on this now:
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/05/23/yale-philosopher-named-harassment-complaint
Fanyavizuri (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Malcolm T Elliott
Malcolm T. Elliott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could you please refresh my brothers page to the state it was in including his details in CURRENT. These were in place for a number of weeks until the 20th May when someone keeps entering and changing the details. Thank you Wendy Elliott Otherwise could you kindly remove his entry from your pages and be done with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.188.247 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. Names of spouses, family members, and especially children should not be included per WP:BLPNAME, unless it is well-sourced, reported in many reliable sources, and is directly related to the subject's notability. I have removed the other names for that reason, but think the entire section should be cut for lack of sources.
- The article has multiple other issues of grammar, structure, and style that should be addressed, as it reads more like a facebook profile than an encyclopedia article. The article only has two sources, so notability may be borderline. If you prefer the entire article be deleted, you can bring this up at WP:Articles for deletion. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Libby Garvey
Libby Garvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I initially filed an AfD on this (IMO) unnotable local politician, but I'm disturbed by not only the awful writing, but more so at language that tried to create a "guilt by association" by linking a quote on a municipal issue to the late Rob Ford, and then listing all of his dastardly deeds. The article uses sources such as "Patch" and uses original research such as saying "local papers said XYZ" when it was a single article. Could someone take a look and see if they can fix this article to remove the OR and poor sourcing?That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- This article is still suffering from seemingly minor but grossly misleading claims that contravene the BLP policy. Please see the talk page, but an editor seems insistent on stating that multiple (as in more than one) Toronto based journalists claimed the BLP subject is a rogue member of local government" and "Virginia's Rob Ford, which considering the colorful history of Ford had damned well better be sourced. But the article only cites one journalist from an "alternative" news operation, which like most similar operations make rather flamboyant statements that while may be properly sourced is not fit for usage in an encyclopedia. I'm afraid that my first impression, which I've kept to myself until now is that the raison d'etre for this article may be to attack a living person for a political position they took (which in fact was ultimately backed by 80% of her fellow local politicians), only one of which has a Wikipedia article and that's due to them actually having passed the GNG bar.
Please watchlist this article and opine on the articles AFD entry.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- update: That man from Nantucket has been revealed to be a bad faith sockpuppet... Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's actually not as clear as it might have seemed, but in any event, discussion can continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
John Cryan (false place of birth)
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Cryan
He was born in SUNDERLAND, not in Harrogate: https://global.handelsblatt.com/edition/429/ressort/finance/article/riding-with-the-king I quote this above-mentioned article: "It was actually a coincidence that Mr. Cryan became a banker. He was born into a middle-class family in SUNDERLAND, a tough working-class city in the northeast of England. His mother died when he was a child. He went to Cambridge to study physics, where Stephen Hawking was one of his professors. After graduating, Mr. Cryan wasn’t sure what to do. He thought about pursuing a PhD. But his father, a jazz musician in the legendary London club Ronny Scott’s, had died while Mr. Cryan was a student. So he needed money. After a short spell as an auditor, he joined the British investment bank SG Warburg." - "Handelsblatt reporter Daniel Schäfer spent a week on the road with Deutsche Bank Co-Chief Executive Officer John Cryan – and soon-to-be sole CEO – as the two trotted the globe from Singapore to London to Frankfurt. Along they way, they shared a flight, carpooled, met customers and colleagues, attended a company meeting, traversed a busy trading floor, and enjoyed a Sunday brunch. Never has a journalist come this close to the most powerful banker in Germany. What the author discovered is that there is much more to this media-shy British-born banker than meets the eye. Mr. Cryan unveiled himself as charming, humorous, even mischievous – and always up for surprises. (...) In addition to being granted unprecedented access to the top banker, Mr. Schäfer met with countless current and former colleagues, customers and investors. Among them was Mr. Cryan’s long-time executive assistant. And if anyone knows the boss, it’s his secretary, who revealed one of the Deutsche Bank CEO’s quintessential qualities: He can be fierce, even furious, but never does he lose his cool."
Will someone now PLEASE correct the article on John Cryan !!!
Thank You. 78.52.193.9 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears as though we have two conflicting sources - BBC and Handelsblatt regarding Cryan's birthplace. Not sure one source should override another since both are reliable. Any suggestions from others? Meatsgains (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
What about the following source stating Sunderland as well (klick on "Find") ? http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl?type=Births&districtid=all&surname=Cryan&given=John&sq=4&start=1960&eq=4&end=1960&countyid=all Furthermore, the Handelsblatt-source is not merely an article ABOUT Mr Cryan as are all other sources inclunding the BBC, but it is an article based on an actual interview WITH Cryan himself. Therefore we have good reason to assume that Mr Cryan HIMSELF has authorised the relevant parts, especially those about his private life which include the City of Sunderland stated as his place of birth therein ! 78.52.193.9 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm unsure whether FreeBMD is a reliable source and have posted to RSN to acquire feedback from others. Also, you noted "all other sources"... could you provide links to these sources you are referring to? Meatsgains (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Please check this out
Little birdie suggested this might be a BLP violation. I am not sure one way or another. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not a violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would prefer 'alleged' as well given the subject - however in context technically it is not a violation. The foundation was set up to fund a private prosecution for child neglect. That is a fact. The crime was alleged, but not the reason for the foundations creation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Dimitri Soudas
Dimitri Soudas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article reads like promotional material - cut and pasted from promotional brochure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.14 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wow! This is one of the worst examples of a promotional page I've ever seen. And it omits any mention of the several major controversies he's been involved in. Starting some cleanup, but looks like this will take a while... Fyddlestix (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok I finished an initial cleanup but there are still some major issues - see my comments here on the article talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Other languages
Does this policy govern all language versions of Wikipedia or just the English language version? -- HighKing++ 17:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @HighKing: WP:BLP applies only to en.wiki. However, this applies to all projects. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael Oulton
Michael Oulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user account ( Satyrrills5) is persistently posting incorrect and inflammatory information that slanders the name of a living person. The sources referenced are [attempted outing redacted] news reports that made no mention of the Michael Oulton. Further, there are no criminal charges (never have been) and no accusations against the Bishop other than this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.251.59 (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Satyrrills5 to this discussion. I agree with the anonymous editor that after looking at the reverts, which have been done on other articles regarding the same copypasted content, had sources which did not refer to the content at all. However, both editors have been edit warring on not only that article, but other articles with the same contested content. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Mike V. The other involved editor here, 194.187.251.59 has also been edit warring with the user you blocked, User:Satyrrills5. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no "edit warring" when reverting BLP edits. I didn't check other articles, but I concur that the edits in this article don't assert what it's supposed to be, based on the source provided. I have RPP until this dies down. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Mike V. The other involved editor here, 194.187.251.59 has also been edit warring with the user you blocked, User:Satyrrills5. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've redacted part of your post, please no WP:OUTING other editors. Agree there are issues with the edits though. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- In fact, I agree with the anonymous editor that the content he has been removing should be removed. However, an admin has blocked both users and currently the anon he is IP hopping. @Mike V: for your information and immediate action, the IP is IP hopping: See [4]. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- IP has been unblocked, and should remain unblocked. Reverting BLP is allowed. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The content that he is removing is also on non BLP articles: see [5] and [6]. Though I fully agree with the anon that the content shouldn't be there as the sources quoted don't back it up, since an admin has made his action I think I should let him take note. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- BLP is not on the article, it's on the edit. What he is reverting is defamatory information that is not sourced. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes I think we're in agreement the edits should have been reverted. Multiple articles affected: Grenville Christian College, Michael Oulton, Community of Jesus, Diocese of Ontario, George Bruce (bishop), Allan Read, Peter Mason (bishop), St. George's Cathedral (Kingston, Ontario), Henry Hill (bishop). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- BLP is not on the article, it's on the edit. What he is reverting is defamatory information that is not sourced. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The content that he is removing is also on non BLP articles: see [5] and [6]. Though I fully agree with the anon that the content shouldn't be there as the sources quoted don't back it up, since an admin has made his action I think I should let him take note. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- IP has been unblocked, and should remain unblocked. Reverting BLP is allowed. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- In fact, I agree with the anonymous editor that the content he has been removing should be removed. However, an admin has blocked both users and currently the anon he is IP hopping. @Mike V: for your information and immediate action, the IP is IP hopping: See [4]. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with Fyddlestix and Sir Joseph. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Repinging the blocking admin User:Mike V as I would like his opinion so far, especially since the IP is IP hopping. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've reblocked the IP range because it belongs to a hosting service. I'm still looking into this. Mike V • Talk 18:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Repinging the blocking admin User:Mike V as I would like his opinion so far, especially since the IP is IP hopping. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Rick Alan Ross
I have made some suggestions regarding the lead and Occupation description at my bio on the Talk page.[[7]] These suggested edits are based upon reliable sources listed and linked.[[8]] Some editors agreed and were helpful in organizing the sources. I have some concerns about the tone of other editors blocking changes supported by reliable sources. In response one editor said,"it is time for a ban"[[9]], while another categorized me as on the "fringe." [[10]] I was previously told that I could make suggestions at the Talk page of my bio. And I have acted in good faith and made suggestions based upon reliable sources within Wikipedia guidelines. What do you think? Are the suggested edits well supported? Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is not the appropriate place to bring up user conduct issues. You may want to try ANI. For the suggested edits to be accepted, you have to build consensus on the talk page. I don't see a WP:BLP policy issue here.- MrX 21:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two editors block edits, while others are open and helpful. The tone of those two editors is often quite negative. Should a bio be controlled by two editors?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you have evidence of misconduct, go to ANI. Otherwise, please read and understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. Perhaps the two editors have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind and are following our policies, and perhaps you have your own interests in mind and are disregarding the advice of experienced editors.- MrX 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two editors block edits, while others are open and helpful. The tone of those two editors is often quite negative. Should a bio be controlled by two editors?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Rick Alan Ross: You are not going to get far complaining about behavior when you misrepresent other editor's words. The whole quote is
"The only thing I can think of is to have Rick Alan Ross put his proposed edits to WP:RFC. If they pass fine, however, if there is yet again no consensus for them to be added and he brings of up the issue again without significantly better sources then it is time for a ban."
[11] (ul added) Please do not do that again. Anyway ANI is the right place for your behavioral complaint and I believe another editor is opening a thread at WP:FTN for the content issues. JbhTalk 21:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. You suggested a process for me to be banned from the Talk page of my bio. I think you have suggested that before. You and Ronz have persistently blocked reasonable proposed edits based upon reliable sources, while other editors have not. Do you and Ronz want to dominate and control my bio?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I suggested to you the process all Wikipedia editors follow when they have reached an impass on the talk page. If you are unwilling to accept the outcome of an RfC then I suspect the tolerance the community has been extending you will end.
As to your other comments above link some WP:DIFFs at WP:ANI. I will be more than happy to have my behavior and judgement reviewed by the community. I strongly suggest that you not misquote me as you did above when you make that complaint though - that is not only deceptive but rude as well. JbhTalk 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have never been rude to to you and there was no impasse. Editors other than you and Ronz acknowledged that the sources I listed supported the suggested edits. I will continue to act in good faith. You did previously suggest that I might be banned from the Talk page of my bio. Why do you persistently reject reliable sources, block edits and continue suggesting the idea that I might be banned from the Talk page of my bio?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I suggested to you the process all Wikipedia editors follow when they have reached an impass on the talk page. If you are unwilling to accept the outcome of an RfC then I suspect the tolerance the community has been extending you will end.
- No. You suggested a process for me to be banned from the Talk page of my bio. I think you have suggested that before. You and Ronz have persistently blocked reasonable proposed edits based upon reliable sources, while other editors have not. Do you and Ronz want to dominate and control my bio?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:FTN discussion started: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rick_Alan_Ross_-_deprogrammer. My apologies for the delay in starting it. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have serious concerns about how Ronz is attempting to use "fringe theory" to edit my bio. IMO Ronz has a POV and he wants it expressed through my bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk)
- Yes agree the fringe noticeboard is not the correct location to discuss at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- FRINGE issues were identified on the talk page. Editors agreed that FTN should be used. There's agreement at FTN that the FRINGE issues are real. This is exactly what the noticeboard is for. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ronz: Your statement is misleading. Editors agreed that the reliable sources I listed and linked were good. Editors agreed that the suggested edits to the bio were fair. You and another editor dismissed the sources and sought to block edits. Now you are attempting to use "FRINGE issues" to leverage your position to block edits. IMO you are gaming the system.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Suit yourself Ronz but there is nothing WP:FRINGE about deprogramming or whatever it is that he is now either. IMHO the treatment of Ross by the majority of the wikipedia volunteers is, has been very poor and has recently got decidedly worse. He is discussing in good faith and the suggestion to ban him from his own article talk page is totally undue and excessive. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Please understand that the majority of Wikipedia volunteers have been reasonable and often helpful. Ronz and Jbhunley are the exceptions, especially Ronz. He has been bullying and tag teaming with Jbhunley. I have followed the rules, provided the sources and so now they are blocking and gaming.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ow good, in regards to your comment that, " Please understand that the majority of Wikipedia volunteers have been reasonable and often helpful" . I agree with you that you are being very poorly treated at the moment. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. IMO Ronz wants my bio to read according to his POV. I am what he says I am regardless what reliable sources I cite and link. Hopefully someone from Wikipedia will intervene and explain to Ronz that he is operating outside the rules.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ow good, in regards to your comment that, " Please understand that the majority of Wikipedia volunteers have been reasonable and often helpful" . I agree with you that you are being very poorly treated at the moment. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Please understand that the majority of Wikipedia volunteers have been reasonable and often helpful. Ronz and Jbhunley are the exceptions, especially Ronz. He has been bullying and tag teaming with Jbhunley. I have followed the rules, provided the sources and so now they are blocking and gaming.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- FRINGE issues were identified on the talk page. Editors agreed that FTN should be used. There's agreement at FTN that the FRINGE issues are real. This is exactly what the noticeboard is for. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes agree the fringe noticeboard is not the correct location to discuss at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Richard J Jensen under attack
On the Richard J. Jensen page--that's me!-- user:WikiEditorial101 has been adding attack tags -- attacking my credibility and honesty and alleging another editor: "also strongly suspect that this is Mr. Jensen's sock)" He fails to discuss the issue of the talk page saying that "Excuse me, Mr. Jensen, but tags are not material, much less contentious material." I argue that I have followed the rules a) Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion and b) Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Jensen seems to be a long-retired history professor focusing on social history of the American midwest with one book of note. I question notability. More important is his apparent obsession with his page, which he has repeatedly edited and which has grown quite unwieldy and messy. What is an "attack tag"? Avocats (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- the notability question has been discussed at length at [[12]] with the strong consensus for notability. The rule at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is that 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. see The American Historical Association "James Harvey Robinson Prize" "is offered biennially for the teaching aid that has made the most outstanding contribution to the teaching of history in any field.... 1996 H-Net, based at Michigan State Univ.; Richard J. Jensen, executive director, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago...." Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think Jensen is notable, but just barely. Certainly it is not a BLP violation to suggest that he may not be, as Jensen himself is currently argueing (and editwarring) in his own BLP.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Seems notable per googlescholar and other sources. If you really feel the professor is not notable, AfD is "over there." And where contentious claims are made without strong reliable sourcing, Satan himself should remove them. Collect (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Jensen is removing the notability and POV tags, stating that the tags themsels are violations of BLP. This is clearly not in line with policy, and encouraging BLP subjects to agressively remove anything they disagree with in their BLPs is a really bad slippery slope towards having people managing their own biographies. That is not how I think the BLP rules are supposed to work. Jensen of course, being a long time editor, should know all of this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Maunus says "This is clearly not in line with policy" -- he made that up and is unable to quote any wiki rule or policy. the rule (top of this page) = "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." he says "material" does not include tags -- his imaginary new rule made up today. Rjensen (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am at a loss at how an experienced editor can even arrive at the idea that the editorial tags might possibly fall under "contentious unsourced or poorly sourced content". The tags are not content at all, and requires no sources, only an ongoing editorial discussion. DO you really believe that BLP subjects have a right to remove editorial tags they disagree with from the articles about them? You shouldnt even be adding or removing content from that article at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like clasic disruptive editing to me. If he continues removing appropriately placed maintinance tags WP:ANI is that way ==> PS "under attack" really?!!? BLPN requires neutral headers, again something a long time editor should know. JbhTalk 00:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- What we have is: Adding tags for non-obvious problems - without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems - is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags, such as or , you should explain yourself on the talk page and/or in an edit summary. It can help to refer to applicable content policies. from Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems Note that "applicable content policies" are all about material and does apply to tagging. Rjensen (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- However the tags you removed included {{notability}} [13] [14] and based on the conversations on the talk page they seem to have been well explained. Certianly they have been explained to you now. JbhTalk 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- well no -- the "notability" issue was well covered a year ago. Did you miss Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #2 ? Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- However the tags you removed included {{notability}} [13] [14] and based on the conversations on the talk page they seem to have been well explained. Certianly they have been explained to you now. JbhTalk 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- What we have is: Adding tags for non-obvious problems - without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems - is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags, such as or , you should explain yourself on the talk page and/or in an edit summary. It can help to refer to applicable content policies. from Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems Note that "applicable content policies" are all about material and does apply to tagging. Rjensen (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like clasic disruptive editing to me. If he continues removing appropriately placed maintinance tags WP:ANI is that way ==> PS "under attack" really?!!? BLPN requires neutral headers, again something a long time editor should know. JbhTalk 00:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am at a loss at how an experienced editor can even arrive at the idea that the editorial tags might possibly fall under "contentious unsourced or poorly sourced content". The tags are not content at all, and requires no sources, only an ongoing editorial discussion. DO you really believe that BLP subjects have a right to remove editorial tags they disagree with from the articles about them? You shouldnt even be adding or removing content from that article at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Maunus says "This is clearly not in line with policy" -- he made that up and is unable to quote any wiki rule or policy. the rule (top of this page) = "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." he says "material" does not include tags -- his imaginary new rule made up today. Rjensen (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Jensen is removing the notability and POV tags, stating that the tags themsels are violations of BLP. This is clearly not in line with policy, and encouraging BLP subjects to agressively remove anything they disagree with in their BLPs is a really bad slippery slope towards having people managing their own biographies. That is not how I think the BLP rules are supposed to work. Jensen of course, being a long time editor, should know all of this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh--it's getting worse. One editor keeps alleging illegal sock puppets on my part--with zero evidence. That is a very negative accusation in Wikipedia and violates BLP rules. (He did not actually take the case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I deleted this BLP violation and another editor reinstated it, saying in the edit summary, "This is discussing behavior ans is not a BLP violation. Certianly not to the level of redacting amother editor's comments." Nope. the rule is " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It may well be a violation of WP:NPA and sanctionable at WP:ANI but it is not a freeking WP:BLP violation. Nor is WP:SOCKing "illegal", there are no laws on Wikipedia, it may be against the rules and you may get blocked if true but "Using multiple illegitimate accounts on Wikipedia" is not going to show up on your bloody police blotter. Your inappropriate BLP claims make it very difficult to find and address any legitimate claims you may have. Having your own article does not give you any special rights or privlages like making spurious BLP claims in non-article space editing disputes. JbhTalk 03:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh--it's getting worse. One editor keeps alleging illegal sock puppets on my part--with zero evidence. That is a very negative accusation in Wikipedia and violates BLP rules. (He did not actually take the case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I deleted this BLP violation and another editor reinstated it, saying in the edit summary, "This is discussing behavior ans is not a BLP violation. Certianly not to the level of redacting amother editor's comments." Nope. the rule is " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiEditorial101 has agreed to step away from this article, and I believe this discussion can be closed. Any further issues can be addressed through ordinary editing, or talkpage discussion if needed. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Mention of bipolar disorder in biography articles
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Bipolar disorder. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Opined. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Allegedly Lega-C wants the page to be deleted. I have reverted the blanking. Please supervise.Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Evan Stafford
Looking for some advice. Several issues with this page:
- Completely unsourced
- fails WP:NACTOR in my opinion
- being regularly edited by IPs claiming to be the subject, most recently in a promotional aspect away from acting [15]
As it's existed since 2007(!) it isn't possible to WP:BLPPROD.
Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've listed it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Stafford. Polequant (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
List of Romani Americans
I came across this as a speedy for the below reason. Obviously the rationale is too contentious to really fall under speedy criteria and the IP user makes some fairly good points. Do you guys think that this would be a good AfD candidate? Also, I'm concerned by the fact that this was created by a sockpuppet of a now blocked user.
Here's the rationale:
- Insignificant, cruft article. Roma gypsy Americans keep their indentify and ethnicity a secret due to discrimination and stereotypes. Kesha is not Roma and Facebook is not a reliable source. Roma people don't have their own nation and this article will not expand soon due to Roma gypsies keeping their identity a secret again due to discrimination. Most of these people on this list aren't American. Ian Hancock is British, Sophia Santi is Canadian
What do you guys think? This does fall under BLP territory given the claims. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Its a list. So it has to abide by list rules, which means those included must pass the reliable source requirement. If someone cant be reliably sourced to be a Roma gypsy (self-identification would actually qualify here, not *everyone* is ashamed or secrative of their heritage), then they should be removed from the list. I think there probably is enough notable Americans of Romani heritage to make such a list possible. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Saying that, I remove Kesha from the list as its unsourced on the list and at the article. Some of the others are sourced, but to primary sources which should be fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have dropped a note on the IP's talkpage pointing them here, as they have reinstated material that fails sourcing for information about a BLP's ethnicity. (and removed the info again).
- While technically I suppose no policy prohibits it, they then redirected once the CSD tag was removed. Not sure why they have a bee in their bonnet about it. Currently the only people listed there have either self-identified in interviews or it has been reliably sourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Not particularly urgent or anything but this article is being used as a coatrack for objections to a development by this person. Multiple SPAs acting to reintroduce the information, albeit pretty infrequently. The information itself is sourced, though is definitely from one POV, and lends undue weight to this one issue, which is not really suitable for a BLP. I don't know what the best option is - semi-protection, or just raising it here for more people to watchlist. (It's a fairly obscure article so won't have many watchers). Polequant (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Peter Thiel
[16] shows an IP editor repeating an attempt to add the Hulk Hogan funding rumour to the Peter Thiel BLP.
- "In May 2016, it came to light that Thiel had been funding Terry Bollea's lawsuit against Gawker Media for publishing footage of him fornicating with a married woman. The case, Bollea v. Gawker, was initially decided in Mr. Bollea's favor for $140 million and is currently being appealed by Gawker. The trial was notable for including Bollea's sworn testimony affirming the discrepancy between the size of his penis and the size of Hulk Hogan's penis. The trial was also notable for excluding the racist comments made post-fornication by Bollea while moralizing about his daughter's sex life; Gawker had opted not to publish these as part of the sex tape in deference to his privacy. When these comments were made public by other sources, they ruined Bollea's career and he was made an unperson by the WWF. Although publication of these comments resulted in significant financial damage (as indicated by the need for Thiel's financial assistance), Bollea instead opted to sue Gawker for the more media-friendly "intentional infliction of emotional distress.""
Sourced to the famous reliable source:
- empty citation
An earlier version which did not make as strong a claim was sourced to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/business/dealbook/gawker-founder-suspects-a-common-financer-behind-lawsuits.html?_r=0&mtrref=undefined&gwh=8EB856CA694BEE35DAD21A061BACB400&gwt=pay which is carefully worded attributing the claim to Mr. Denton (Gawker head) who is quoted as speculating that Thiel is behind Gawker's legal woes. ("Mr. Denton has begun to question whether Mr. Harder has a benefactor, perhaps one of the many subjects of Gawker’s skewering coverage.")
As it stands, I am not allowed to remove the fornication claim from any article - so ask that others view this rumor claim material which has no substantive fact connection to Thiel, and is likely a BLP violation concerning Hogan. Collect (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thiel secretly backed Hulk Hogan's multi-million dollar lawsuit against Gawker Media [93] in an attempt to bankrupt the publication as revenge for writing critically of him. sourced to Forbes is still in the BLP. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#7ab014227805
Problem is that the article specifies:
- On Tuesday, in an interview with The New York Times, Gawker founder Nick Denton said he had a “personal hunch” that the financial aid could be linked to someone in Silicon Valley. “If you’re a billionaire and you don’t like the coverage of you, and you don’t particularly want to embroil yourself any further in a public scandal, it’s a pretty smart, rational thing to fund other legal cases,” he told the Times.
And attributes all other claims to "According to people familiar with the situation who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity," which I rather think means "anonymous sources". "attempt to bankrupt" appears on its face to be a claim of a criminal act. And is not in the source given. Collect (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have watchlisted it, I saw MrX has had a look too so I imagine he has. Suffice to say the IP is so very far from being correct I doubt 90% of that material is useable failing BLP, UNDUE and sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article is written in a rather effusive style - not complying with 'neutral point of view' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polecule (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just had a look, and while 'effusive' they do tend to reflect the language used in the sources provided. Granted wikipedia is meant to be neutral, but at one point we are citing the encyclopedia of ballet and that is not exactly written in a neutral style. It could probably be trimmed a tad in places, but given her accomplishments in her field, a lot of the praise is well deserved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't perceive any BLP policy violations on the article. Any issues can be addressed by ordinary editing, and talkpage discussion if needed. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Nyle DiMarco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello all,
IP editors have been adding an unsourced birth date to Nyle DiMarco all day, and have been reverted, including twice by myself. Now User:Fuccbui has added the date, and sourced it to famousbirthdays.com. My understanding is that this is not a reliable source because it is user-generated content (see this thread on WP:RSN). I would like to note that I have not seen the date published in a more usual reliable source, like an interview. I would like more opinions on this, because we should be using only high quality sources for BLPs per the policy. Comments would be welcome. I just wanted more editors' eyes on this. MisterRandomized (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)