Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Pamela Ribon

Pamela Ribon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A small handful of IP editors are repeatedly inserting this line into the biography of Pamela Ribon:

She is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary under "muffin top." [1] [2] [3]

She is not listed so much as she is quoted from a book to demonstrate ways the term is used in context. I believe that this line is meant to be offensive and intentionally misleading. I have already reverted these edits twice so at this point I would like to ask for a second opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

seems bad to me. thanks for catching this. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange addition - nothing in the OED like that. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently all the text in the entire article was deleted except for a few lists. Surely that isn't the solution. I propose on the talk page to revert those deletions.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the BBC News item about "Barbie" as establishing notability. Collect (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

The subject has mentioned inaccuracies and slurs on the page. Just doing a quick report. Could you check? (User:SatansFeminist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.157.105 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The quotes are all hers and sourced. What's the problem? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

whew that is a bitter dispute. article is full-protected now too. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Christina Hoff Sommers, it is not especially helpful for her to say that the article is full of inaccuracies and slurs without saying what they are or how she thinks the article should be changed. I think there are BLP problems with the article, but my view of them may not be the same as hers. Among other things, there is a sentence reading " The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes "equity feminist views as libertarian and socially conservative " that is poorly sourced and needs removing (it is also very confusing and poorly written as it presently stands, which gives you some idea of the low-quality editing that has been going on at that article). There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, and I invite interested editors to review it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are "inaccuracies and slurs" in an article, in order to help you out you need to point out which edits are offending (see here for more info). We really can't help you out if we don't know what we're looking for, sorry. As this is Wikipedia the best solution is often to improve an article on your own! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She is, and these are her own words frequently stated, a 'card carrying Democrat.' It should at least say that she says that. The article is being slanted to paint her as solely conservative. If you look at the article from a few weeks ago it was far less of an inaccurate character assassination in that respect, which is important to her as a BLP subject.SatansFeminist (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to compare the version from later July with the version now, and it seems that the version now is much improved - in particular in the removal of unbalanced criticism that was there in July. The July version did have a statement along the lines of "Author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a 'libertarian.' Sommers is also a registered Democrat." Is this the line in contention? The article currently describes her views as libertarian, so I assume that the concern is that it doesn't also say that she is registered as a Democrat. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What the article looked like previous is irrelevant, though it's good it's improved. That's more a content dispute and this is for BLP violation discussion. We need very specific things that are "inadequacies and slurs" as you claimed. For what specific reason did you start a thread here? I'm not just dismissing the issue because I haven't looked into the article in depth, but I don't know what your intentions were without evidence. Multiple instances and diffs, specifically. As the complainant you need to do the research. Is there anything beyond what Bilby and ImprovingWiki have stated above? The goal of this board is to give BLPs proper help, after all. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The part about Barbara Marshall saying that Sommers explicitly identifies as a libertarian was removed by me, and I think I was justified in removing it. It does not seem especially significant how one author claims Sommers self-identifies: WP:UNDUE applies here. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There are still real problems with POV-pushing attempts to make her seem more right wing and anti feminist than she is, plus inaccuracies. This is a living person and she is really effected by this smearing.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Same as before... everything is sourced and she is quoted extensively. I see not BLP violations. If you're concerned about WP:UNDUE, discuss it on the talk page. Frankly, the article seems balanced. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait... you started the same discussion already a few days ago... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SatansFeminist, there may be problems with the article, but it isn't appropriate or helpful to start an entirely new section on Sommers when one section on her already exists. That only confuses matters. I have moved your comments into the old section, which is where they should have been in the first place. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Navin Raheja

A user is trying to put some defamatory content in this article. The user has made first edit on 20 November and second edit on 24 November.

Please pay your attention towards this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskargupta269 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Leoaugust User: The content is not defamatory but factual. The person in question has had over 45 lawsuits filed against him and his company in July & August 2014, and all this is part of the persons profile. These cases area of serious nature, and just a mention has been made without reproduction of the charges. All citations are made and reliable sources provided, and the law is that what is true cannot be defamatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoaugust (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article as a whole needs some serious cleaning. The lawsuits do need to be mentioned since they are prominent in the media, but the editor is writing about them in a somewhat sensationalistic manner. However at the same time, I do see where someone is trying to write about Raheja in as positive a light as possible. Either way of writing is unacceptable on Wikipedia and the article needs a complete re-write. I do have to warn you that if someone is known in relation to something negative, that must be covered if there is enough coverage of the event- which it does appear that there is, at least at first glance. We cannot remove or block this content from appearing on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would like it if more editors can come in and help clean the article up and ensure that the article is neutral and does not sway in either direction. This looks like it's gearing up to become an edit war and I'd like to avoid taking this to any other boards (ANI, 3rd opinion, etc) if I can possibly help it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this might actually need to get escalated to ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger Pearson (anthropologist)

Some attention from experienced BLP editors would be good at the perennially controversial article about the anthropologist Roger Pearson. Pearson has now created a personal website which specifically criticizes the coverage of his person in wikipedia, contradicting and criticizing much of the published literature about him. And he appears to be personally participating in the talkpage discussion, arguing for inclusion of material from his website. I have tried to include his specific responses to some of the claims made in the literature and repeated in the article, but being a main contributor to the article I would like some outside eyes to see if what I am doing is reasonable from a BLP perspective.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sangeeth Varghese

References are not mentioned properly and most of the content could not be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.232.65 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Dara Torres

The Dara Torres article is currently a Good Article candidate. The fourth paragraph of the last section (see Dara Torres#Personal life) mentions that a doctor with whom she previously worked was investigated for the illegal distribution of human growth hormone. No credible allegations of steroid, HGH or other performance-enhancing drug use were ever made against Torres during her long-lived competition swimming career. This strikes me as a relatively straight-forward attempt to forge an implied link between a BLP and an unproven illegal/unethical activity with no evidence. I propose to remove the paragraph in its entirety, and I would appreciate some extra eyes on this subject for objective, uninvolved opinions regarding the BLP issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is problematic Dirtlawyer1, and should be removed from the article. It is an implication of guilt by association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cullen. Reactions from any other BLP/N regular participants? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this is an inappropriate and undue mention in a brief Wikipedia biography. The appearance of the connection, presented without context and based upon a single media reference (albeit a very high-quality one) suggests that it be left out, and the absence of any follow-up coverage on the matter further suggests that the implied connection does not exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for review, NorthBySouth. Based on BLP/N feedback, I have deleted the questionable paragraph here. If anyone wishes to comment further, and/or believes the questionable content should be restored, this thread will remain open until archived. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Lamb

Sharon Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. I just noticed someone created a Wikipedia entry about me. I added the sentence about my PhD. I noticed that one of the references for the APA (2007) Sexualization of Girls Task Force Report has an erroneous author on it. Jeanne Blake is listed as the 7th author but she was not one of the authors. I removed her name under the section called "ARTICLES" but was unable to remove it in the section entitled "REFERENCES." Also, one of the co-authors is EILEEN (not Ellen) Zurbriggen, which I corrected under the section called "Articles" but should also be corrected in the references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.161.4 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for drawing our attention to this. Usually the talkpage of the article would be the best place for this kind of minor concerns. Here we mostly deal with problems where biographies of living persons are biased in favor or against the subject and need attention to become objective.Nonetheless, many thanks for correcting these mistakes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi

Canadian TV personality Jian Ghomeshi has recently been arrested, charged and bailed in relation to the accusations which have previously caused problems. See also the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal. The main issues are the extent of the section on recent issues; whether coverage should be limited to there or be mentioned in pretty much every other section; and the relevance media-reports rehashing details from what might (or might not) have been a stand-up comedy style event. It doesn't help that the publisher of many of the news reports (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is not independent, having been his employer during some of the time when the alleged actions happened. More eyes wasted please. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a severe case of recentism. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Justin Berfield

User:Mrmoustache14 keeps adding "Category:LGBT Jews" and "Category:LGBT male actors" tags to the Justin Berfield page even though there are no sources presented in the article to identify the subject as gay. As a justification for the tags, Mrmoustache14 offered the following explanation at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags "It's known that Just Berfeild has been in a relationship with his business partner Jason Felts. Although I'm not sure if they're still together, the fact they ever were makes Berfeild LGBT. Even if he's had a girlfriend, he could be bi, but isn't straight". Obviously, that's not anywhere good enough justification, in terms of both WP:V and WP:BLP. The addition of tags was originally reverted by an IP, then Mrmoustache14 re-added the tags, and I have removed them again. I left comments explaining my revert both at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags and at User talk:Mrmoustache14 Since I am basically almost completely retired, it'd be good if somebody else keeps an eye on the page and also comments at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags regarding this issue. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Categorization as such requires self-identification. Been settled a long time. such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Collect (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Malky Mackay

User:Amusedkid [4] is adding defamatory (and poorly sourced) content to this article. The subject is currently undergoing an investigation by the sport's national governing body (the FA), but has not been convicted of anything. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

List of British mobsters

List of British mobsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An entirely unsourced list of "organized crime figures within the underworld of the United Kingdom", including redlinks, and at least one apparent blue link which actually redirects back to the list. Can anyone give me a legitimate reason not to preemptively blank the lot per WP:BLP policy, until such time as it is properly sourced? I can't think of one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks should be removed, but what was the result of the semi-recent similar RFC about lists and sourcing where the individual articles were sufficiently sourced? (I can't remember the specific topic of the list in question, but it was in the past month or two and was a bigish kerfuffle) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If the RfC came to any conclusions (I can't find it either) it doesn't seem to have resulted in any change in policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump It was the porn list issue mentioned below I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the exact topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say to remove any link, red or blue, except where there is an article that identifies the subject as a "mobster" with unquestionable sources. Note that "mobster" is arguably not the same thing as "criminal". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Removed the lot. If someone adds even a single name, it must have absolutely reliable strong sourcing. In fact, I would suggest the "List of mobsters"-type articles should all be Hoovered of any names where the sourcing is peccable. Collect (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The list has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters (2nd nomination). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Rfc, resulting from a discussion as to whether porn star lists needed to be BLP compliant, did result in a slight policy change, makoing it clearer than ever that lists need to be BLP compliant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that there was a more recent discussion of the subject somewhere or other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a single user is not merely restoring BLP violating material here but threatening to treat those who remove such BLP violations as vandals. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the majority of these people are dead, therefore WP:BLP does not apply. Amongst those that are not dead there appear to be sufficient references to demonstrate involvement in criminal gangs. Therefore I do not consider the mass removal of all items on the list justified by BLP - if anything task should be taken with the linked articles if SqueakBox believes they contain errors. Artw (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are references, the article needs referencing, per policy, regardless of whether the people are alive or not. We do not cite Wikipedia articles as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The references can be copied from the linked articles to the list if required, however that seems like an unnecessary duplication and not something I've seen in other list articles. Artw (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are basing your claim that it is unnecessary on the assumption that we only have articles about British mobsters on wikipedia. Because otherwise I fail to see how an article merely existing can be used as evidence that someone is a British mobster. Hence we need source they are mobsters and that they are British, and in the list article. If you are finding lists that arent compliant you might help fix that but RESTORING BLP violating material is never acceptable. Because the reality is that the list you restored does contain living ppl and does not contain a single reference, therefore you are being dishonest in claiming these references exist. Where are they? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In case it is unclear the linked articles are all about UK gangsters and the references in those articles predominantly discuss gangster activity in the UK. 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Inclusion in a list requires evidence that the material in question meets the criteria for inclusion. That requires citation. Though since the list concerned gave no objective criteria anyway, it was clearly WP:OR, and shouldn't have existed in the first place. And yes, I am well aware that crappy unsourced lists can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is time that those who compiled such material actually took the time to ensure that they complied with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed a Courtesy blanked template on the page, which should remain until the issue is decided both here and at the AfD. Safiel (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems highly unconventional to block improvement of an article under AfD, especially when there is a claim that including references from the linked articles would allow them to be included. Also you have not addressed the bulk of these people are not living (see here [[5]]) - what is the argument for not putting them in a list? Artw (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion on the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"List of British Mobsters"? Artw (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So, no actual criteria, just anyone a contributor thinks fits the description? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are all British and described as gangsters in their respective articles. I'm pretty sure you could argue about the usefulness of such a list at AFD, but I see no WP:BLP reasons for not including the likes of the Kray Twins on such a list. Artw (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Artw, that it is very sad the article is currrently blanked as now is the perfect opportunity to improve it. But it is entirely your fault as you kept restoring BLP violations and even went as far as to say that removing these BLP violations is vandalism. They arent actually all described as mobsters in their wikipedia articles, the first three I checked didnt use the word mobster. But how are we supposed to verify your claim that the articles mention that these ppl are British and mobsters? With reliable sources, but that is what you have failed to add, there is not even one reliable source in the article as it was. And you didnt just restore the dead ppl such as the Kray twins so dont please start making claims about them to justify your BLP violations. You have made no attemopt to prove your assertion that the original articles source what you claim they source as if you did you could have copied and pasted the alleged sources. And given that I was getting 0 out of 3 checking for mobsters I am dubious of your unproven claim. That means your BLP additions have been challenged and it was unacceptable of you to revert that challenge without citing, let alone twice. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per my edit summary all restored items were either people or people whose articles have references showing them to be British gangsters. The claim that no rationale was given for restoring them to the list is untrue - in fact you'll notice a few that did not meet those criterea were dropped from the list. Artw (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong here. How can you claim this. The article did not even have a reference template. This was the page as of yesterday, as we can al see without a single referenced entry. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As you will note, SqueakBox plays this little game where they refuse to click on any link within the article. Artw (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The refs must be in the article. I have had this argument before and the conclusion was to tighten up the BLP policy to make it 100% clear that lists needs citing in themselves. That is the policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

please point me at the relevant text. Artw (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"try searching "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates" on the page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen a ref on a navigation page or a template. Surely this just means that WP:V must be met by the target of the link? Artw (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that some material was being removed over-and-above BLP reasons and in a way that is clearly discouraged in AFD policy. Source-defined career criminals who have been dead for decades were removed, as well as basic navigational categories for the article. If the material is not sourced in the respective articles, they should be removed, but that doesn't translate to effacing all study of past criminal history in a society, as sourced by reliable historical texts. Are people actually suggesting that there have been no proven cases of a British person involved in organized crime? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Fawcett (writer)

Dear Sirs,

The entry for Bill Fawcett writer is consistently being changed back to information about me that is incorrect, professional damaging (claiming things I did not do) and potentially might open me to legal action. Virtually every line in he material constantly being posted again and again under career is wrong. I have just attempted again to simply put in a placer holder.

I have attempted several times to remove or revise the information entering both long and short revisions, only to have the fallacious entry reappear a few days, or even hours, later. Your staff member (do not want to post the name, contact me for it if needed) and I have corresponded since early November about this concern. When it was revised accurately, he gave the impression the problem was solved, only to have the incorrect entries appear and reappear several times since replacing the inaccurate and damaging material. He recently no longer is responding to my emails. I spoke to the source referenced for the material and the owner of Crescent City agreed it was incorrect. (I can put you in contact if needed.) In light of the several weeks of being unable to remove the damaging material I ask that you simply remove any entry on me. I formally request this for European access, if that even applies and is needed. I commend your work and its many volunteers, but am being damaged by it and seem unable to get corrections made. Again, please remove the inaccurate and legally questionable material (the entire career sections when changed back) or just delete the entry completely to stop doing me professional and financial harm.

Thank you,

Bill Fawcett

Here is my official bio:

Feel free to source my bio on the Dragoncon.org website or use any or all of the below if you are unwilling to simply delete any entry for me and leave it gone. After writing for Dragon Magazine Bill was one of the founders of Mayfair Games, a board and role play gaming company. As an author Bill has written or co-authored over a dozen books and dozens of articles and short stories. Bill Fawcett & Associates has packaged over 300 books for major publishers. These include a number of bestselling Science Fiction, Mystery, and Action novels. The Fleet series he created with David Drake was the first military science fiction shared world series. Bill has collaborated on several mystery novels including with Quinn Yarbro including the Authorized Mycroft Holmes novels and the Madame Vernet Investigates series. He has also written Oval Office Oddities. His other solo collections include The 100 Mistakes that Changed History and Trust Me, 100 Leadership Mistakes that Changed History. As an anthologist Bill has edited or co-edited around 40 anthologies. Bill is the editor of Hunters and Shooters and The Teams, two oral histories of the SEALs in Vietnam. His historical "Mistakes" series of often amused look at how the mistakes in history changed our lives include It Seemed Like a good Idea, It Looked Good On Paper and You Did What. A military mistakes series include How To Lose A Battle,, How To Lose a War, How To Lose WWII, How To Lose a War at Sea, and How To Lose the American Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouru (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bouru: Well... we can make small tweaks with a WP:PRIMARY source but not huge ones. The main thing I saw was that you were removing a history section, but I don't see anything about it that would be overwhelmingly harmful to you as a professional. Sometimes Wikipedia articles can contain information that someone may not want in their article, but if those things happened and received enough coverage to merit inclusion, they should be added. We can't really edit an article to only include the positive things or to only include things in an official bio if anything negative or embarrassing gained a substantial amount of coverage. (Plus us only including things in an official biography does come across a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, among other things.) That's just not how Wikipedia works. I do see where someone just redirected it to the main article for your pseudonym, which was what my main suggestion was going to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• We also cannot just ask someone if this is true or not- we'd still need coverage in reliable sources to back this sort of thing up and not word of mouth. I remember one instance where an author held an interview with a newspaper just to fix things in an article. I can't remember the author, but he was someone fairly well known in the literary world and it kind of just goes to show how difficult it is to disprove something or to fix something without an independent and reliable source. Word of mouth just simply isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We should just AfD this. Its only references are PW book summaries, one fleeting reference in the LA Times and the author's official bio on the Macmillan website. Doesn't really meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and, if it's inaccurate, would be better to just recycle the whole article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Update - I just AfD'ed this. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Torrealba

Juan Vicente Torrealba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has very few watchers. A rather green editor who appears to be a big fan is adding a lot of material to the article that is poorly sourced. Initially, he didn't source it at all. Now, most of it is sourced to the subject's own website. I'm not getting anywhere with him (he just left me an angry post on my talk page). Perhaps someone could take a look at it. It probably can be made to into a reasonable article, although secondary sources may be hard to find.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the page to see what I could improve/fix. Someone beat me to it and removed the information supported by poor sources. The page is now on my watch list. Meatsgains (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws

Can we get some eyes on this? It's a list of non-notable, non-articled people completely referenced to primary government documents. Many of the child immigration cases are from the sixties and seventies but some are from 2000s, clearly about children, and who would still be children today. All of the cases involve subjects within the time limits of BLPs.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrid. Unless the person is notable, they have no business being listed in a Wikipedia article. Period. Collect (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pruned of all non-notable persons AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone re-added non-notable persons. Re-pruned. Collect (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Concern re sources

The vast preponderance of refs given are gpo.gov documents, and not to any secondary source at all. Is [6] (typical example) a valid secondary source per WP:RS and WP:BLP? Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a secondary source by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

And there has to be a better title for the article, if it has to exist at all.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

LeGarrette Blount

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

Several of the references are used inappropriately to cite falsely. For ex. under early life and high school career, the link about him having a brother and a sister with whom he smokes blunts connects to a page that only mentions the siblings - nothing about smoking, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macattack415 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was recently added vandalism. I've removed it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Falcon - AfD

This article is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Falcon (2nd nomination). In the first AfD, the subject himself commented that he was about to receive major press for a screen play he had written circa 2008. This apparently did not happen as the majority of his acting resume in uncredited roles meaning he was an extra or had other lesser parts. The Afd had a non-admin close when the nominator withdrew. Now we have a second AfD with currently a single Delete (myself) and a single Keep vote with discussion. Additional input would be appreciated. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

emily Carey

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

The information on Emily Carey for Siblings is incorrect. Emily does not have siblings. I also object to her DOB being shown. She is an 11 year old child. I cannot see how to change this information or where it has sprung from or who has added this. I am Emily's mother. I need some help here please. Urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.65.124 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a birthdate or siblings in that article. Puzzling... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The user is no doubt seeing it on google search which provides both bits of information and a link to wikipeida --_nonsense ferret 15:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy Puddicombe

Wiki article was professionally edited by marketing person. Complete article sounds like an advertisement for him and his platform. Entire article was created on March 19th and references same articles over and over. Please consider revising to not make it sound like a complete free advertisement on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.25.85 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth dates

Admin Bbb23 kindly suggested this would be a good forum to discuss birth dates of notable subject's children when the subjects themselves release press releases and official statements. He said it was alright to link to the background discussion at User talk:Bbb23#Tom Hanks.

In a nutshell: WP:DOB says nothing to prohibit this generally basic piece of biographical information. Obviously, if the parents do not make an announcement, like Christian Bale, they want it private, and under WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, we certainly would not cite anonymous, unattributed purported "sources" at People, etc.

In the cases of parents actively releasing birth announcements to the media, there is clearly no objection on their part; when they issue a press release or a publicist's statement themselves, it becomes public knowledge at their own insistence. I think anyone looking up Kim Kardashian's life, for instance, expects to know when North West was born. Does any of this need to be addressed in the policy? Does the policy need clarification, or does it say what it needs to?--Tenebrae (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why the exact birth date of a non-notable child of an article subject makes for good encyclopedic content or is a piece of information that helps the reader better understand the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we still discussing this issue? It have been covered extensively already. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And no consensus appears to have been made, since WP:DOB doesn't mention a word. Let me add that I brought this here at an admin's suggestion, so clearly, it's perfectly valid to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As is obvious from this noticeboard filing, Tenebrae is still discussing it and is asking for more discussion on it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Off topic dispute--Bbb23 (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK. Winkelvi, a.k.a. WV, hounds me on Wikipedia while telling me to stay off his talk page. He's cursed at me with the f-word, and I have done my best to stay away from him, but he goes out of his way to come after me wherever I am. He's done so at an Arb hearing, and he does so here now. He appears obsessed with me, and anything he has to ay about me is tainted and should be discounted. Unless someone's a professional journalist or biographer, one has no background to call basic biographical information "trivia." That would be like me giving opinions on neurosurgery or physics. There is no question that it's pertinent biographer data, from any professional perspective. The only issue is clarifying that we don't publish rumors or uncited claims about children. But to say that pertinent biographical information that a subject releases him or herself in a press release or publicist statement is private is by definition untrue. I stay away from Winkelvi's talk page, as he told me to "fucking" stay away. I would ask him to stop following me around. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC) You accuse me of hounding? Take it to a noticeboard and complain or please retract/strikeout your unfounded accusation. And, I point out once again that you have used the four-letter word you say you abhor, doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and is only used by "angry, white, young males". You gripe about the use of the F-bomb but have now used it 9 times in three days. And can't seem to stop using it. What's the definition of irony? Better yet, what does your griping about me have to do with this noticeboard topic? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I don't direct f-bombs at you, the way you do to me. I'm describing your actions. That's a big difference, and your feigning that you don't know the difference is disingenuous at best and dissembling at worst. As for the other issue, I've asked you to stay away from me, and you clearly are refusing to, following me around to different pages that would survive perfectly well without your input; there are thousands of other editors on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Please get over it and move on. Admins and non-admins alike have said the same thing to you numerous times, yet, you continue to bring up something that happened six months ago. And when it isn't even the topic. Do you want anyone to take your request for comment here seriously or do you want this obsession of yours with the F-Word and the use of it to overshadow this report? Remember, I didn't bring this subject up, you did. Now, can we just discuss the subject of your request and forget about the F-Word thing? (finally?) Please? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about birth dates of notable people. We are discussing birth dates of the children of notable people. There is a huge difference. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks for taking this back on-topic, HiLo48. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

First, on what basis does one say it's not pertinent information when professional journalists and academic biographers say it is, in fact, basic biographical data? Second, how is something pertinent possibly private when the subject announces it in a press release reaching millions of people? Finally, there's nothing prohibitive about it in the policy itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that you have understood my point. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely understood your opinion. I then asked two reasonable questions and made one observation. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to list the exact birth dates of the non-notable living children of Wikipedia article subjects; birth years should suffice. Moreover, there is no reason to include the names of non-notable children unless the names have been previously published in a reliable source. I recently encountered an IP user adding the names of the five children of a former Olympic medalist, completely without any reliable source, apparently solely based on the personal knowledge of the IP user. In such circumstances we should be careful to protect the privacy of the family and children -- especially when the parents have not been responsible for widely disseminating their children's names and other personal information. In the absence of reliable (i.e. published) sources of wide circulation, we should respect that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I'm the one who started this whole thing by editing the Tom Hanks article to include the birthdates and locations of all of his children, not just his one "notable" child, Colin Hanks. I cited my source as The California Birth Index, 1905-1995, which is a public records database available through the State of California. In my opinion, it's about as reliable as you can get, and since the information is, indeed, public, I don't see a problem in using it as a source. My intentions were to add more complete information, as I tend to be a completest by nature. What I didn't expect was this long, involved debate over adding "trivial" information for what some of you are calling non-notable people. I truly apologize to people like Tenebrae for bringing so much negativity back upon you over an issue I never thought was that big of a deal. However, I now have to ask a simple question, focused on Hanks's son, Chet. This young man is also an actor, like his father. He hasn't amassed huge roles in movies or TV shows or any major awards, as yet, but who are we to say he's not notable in his own right? Okay, so he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article... but I'll bet he has fans that are interested in details like when his birthday is. If he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, people will find him in the main body of Mr. Hanks's article, right? So, looking at it from that perspective, wouldn't you (a general "you" addressed to all) want to know such details and be grateful to see them included? For those who declared this matter trivial, forgive me for beating the dead horse, but I did a search of several "notable" high profile people (not just actors) and found that their articles mentioned their children, and in many cases also included more intimate (or minute) details, such as birthdates and locations, and that many different sources, including The California Birth Index, have been used as citations. I'm not trying to stir the pot, so to say, nor am I trying to start an argument with anyone. I just simply don't understand why someone with a completest mentality like myself can't add such a detail, as long as it has a reliable and verifiable source? If even one person reads the article and appreciates the inclusion of such information, then haven't we properly done our job? Or, to borrow from Mr. Spock from Star Trek, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one? Frankly, I don't really expect an answer to this inquiry. I'm writing it in hopes that it might make some of the people who have been drawn into this debate rethink their stance. I'm considering the matter dealt with and closed, but I will continue to contribute such "trivial" details where I see them missing. However, I will generally steer clear of the articles related to the higher profile people and just leave those alone from now on. I've learned my lesson. I apologize for being so verbose, but I appreciate all of you for letting me put this out there and explain my own thoughts and ask questions on the subject. Peace. ShowMeTheMagic (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)ShowMeTheMagic

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You would likely benefit from reading WP:NOT. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Any biographer of a noted individual, whether the subject is an actor, politician or head of GM, includes specifics and not vague details about major life events. The birth of a child is a major life event. Calling it "fan site" material demeans the work of professional journalists and authors, who have training and experience to know what's of pertinent biographical nature and what's "ooh, what's your favorite food?" I myself have deleted trivial content such as "He's a fan of the LA Dodgers."

I respectfully submit that instead of simply throwing around labels like "fan site" or "trivia", that those in this discussion offer thoughtful rationale, as I did in the first two sentences of this paragraph. And unless one writes biographies in a journalistic, authorial or academic context, perhaps one could research journalistic / authorial / academic standards and ethics before offering opinions devoid of fact and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My comments were directed specifically to Magic in order to address his belief that Hanks' fans would want to see the birth dates of his children in the article. Obviously he has a wrong-headed notion about what Wikipedia is. Obviously you have a wrong-headed notion about who can and should comment here. I submit that if you come to a community noticeboard looking for comments from the community that you either should do so prepared to get opinions you don't like from editors you don't like or don't venture over to a noticeboard at all. Getting your panties in a wad over a request for comments you asked for is not helpful to anyone. Further, if you're looking for opinions from only those who meet your personal standards ("journalistic, authorial or academic context, perhaps one could research journalistic / authorial / academic standards and ethics") you aren't going to get what you want in any case. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you know it. These emotional demands and expectations are ridiculous. Not to mention uncivil. Please keep your personal attacks and feelings out of things. You're not doing yourself any favors and are starting to appear out of touch and unreasonable. An admin has already hatted an off-topic conversation in this request for comment -- a conversation that went off-topic because you took it there. How many times would you like that to happen before the whole thing gets shut down due to consensus already reached (not in your favor) and the fact that it's become a waste of the community's time due to your battleground mentality and defensive stance with lines you keep drawing in the sand? You asked for opinion, you're getting it. Be an adult and take it as it comes or don't come here at all, is my suggestion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And you continued to insult me: "wrongheaded" is fairly mild, "battleground mentality" is part of a pattern of attacking the person rather than addressing the arguments, "getting your panties in a wad" is inexcusable. "Be an adult"? A mature adult hardly says things like "getting your panties in a wad".

Then you add threats over the fact I even brought this up — at an admin's suggestion, by the way. And there is hardly consensus for changing a policy: That would take a much longer discussion by a broader cross-section of editors.

"That's not how Wikipedia works"? Wikipedia is supposed to work on informed opinion, not inexpert, uninformed personal opinion. We're supposed to have some idea of what we're talking about, and not just spouting personal belief. Someone in Congress may claim global warming and evolution aren't real, but that's an inexpert, uninformed opinion. That's not my personal standard. And after the hounding you've been conducting against me since June, there was no reason to bait me and to be an instigator by going out of your way to cross paths with me. This discussion could have survived without you; your presence here is not critically necessary. That was your choice. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough. This "discussion" has devolved and veered away from its original intent because Tenebrae chooses to keep taking it off course and away from the topic by throwing stones and making personal attacks. Because he doesn't seem convinced to stop, I have been forced to place a personal attack warning on his talk page (if interested, see here:[7]). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi has just begun harassing me on my talk page after I clearly requested on Nov. 5, as he had previously demanded of me regarding his own talk page, to not post there. I don't know what to do to stop him. I stay off his page, I asked him to stay off mine. Does anyone think that's fair behavior on his part?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As for his claims of "personal attack," I'm quoting his own words, such as his insult to me "getting your panties in a wad". It's also not a personal attack to say truthfully that he is following me around and instigating contact when I've made clear I find that to be harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to his edit of his original post, no one "forced" him to post on my talk page when I had asked him not to. Claiming I mystically have a hold on him and "forced" him to do something is evading responsibility for his own personal choices. Additionally, it is false to claim I am making personal attacks when Winkelvi is the one saying "getting your panties in a wad", "wrongheaded" and "battleground mentality", among his other highly personal attacks on me, and who has been baiting me virtually from the day I returned to Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The "California Birth Index" is a raw public records dump, not a reliable source. There's no sense the records have been verified for accuracy or that they match-up with a specific individual (multiple John Smiths, etc). We're discouraged from using primary sources without care per WP:BLPPRIMARY because of concerns like these. Raw government records are expressly covered by: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. This is policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. My grandfather's date of birth and his mother's maiden name are both listed incorrectly in the BCI. No doubt there are many other records listed incorrectly, as well. Definitely not a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, the Birth Index is not an indicator that this information has any import. We are not here to recreate the Birth Index. If we cannot find this information being reported in locations that indicate that it's important, then there is no reason to assume that people's privacy should be trumped by the need for us to report it. The who-are-we-to-say-whether-Chet-is-notable argument is an easy one: we are the editors of Wikipedia, so yes, we decide what qualifies for this work. We have established (if sometimes loose) standards for notability, and they are constantly in use here. Merely being an actor does not hit our standards, this is not IMDb. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply a point of order: Once parents send out press releases to an audience of millions or pose their children on the covers of national/global magazines, privacy, by definition, is no longer at issue. I'm in complete agreement that If parents do not announce it and the only "sources" are anonymous and unattributed, then it doesn't matter how RS the publication is since anonymous, unattributed reports are simply rumor, and we don't report rumors.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We could put the specific heights of the children as well, but, like birthdays, sources don't generally treat that as information that needs to be obsessively detailed in order to convey biographical context. If it's important to have hyper-detail to understand the biographical narrative, such as "His son was born on the day he was released from prison" then multiple reliable, non-tabloid sources will make it clear it's an important detail. If they don't, it isn't. The fact that Tom Hanks has kids is a significant biographical detail that has had an impact on his life. Whether one of those kids was born in late or early May has had trivial and negligible impact. (Maybe their hair color is as significant to his biography?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The discussion is over privacy, which is removed as an issue when the subject puts out press releases to an audience of millions. And as mentioned, a child's birth is a major life event and normally included in any biographical book, for instance. Hair color generally is not.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I agree with most if not all of what you have said above, but I still fall on the side of caution rather than bold inclusion when it comes to facts about the non-notable children (and other non-notable living relatives), and especially minor children, of article subjects. The California birth index is a primary source, not a secondary source we would normally accept as a "reliable source" per WP:RS. I have from time to time accepted facts sourced to birth records, Social Security death records, military service records, etc., that are now often available online for dead persons through Ancestry.com and similar online genealogy services, but I would not employ them for living persons because of privacy concerns, nor would I treat them as independent published sources for purposes of establishing notability. Your question involving a press release regarding the birth of an article subject's child is a much more interesting case. While I would hesitate to treat a press release as a reliable source, it does signal that the parents' primary concerns are not the privacy of their children. Here are two key analytical questions: How do you know about the press release? Did any reliable sources publish the contents of the press release? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dirtlawyer1, and thank you for your polite and temperate comments. I actually haven't said anything to advocate the California Birth Index, and in fact, if it's genuinely not a reliable source, I'd urge editors to remove it from the Kardashian articles, for instance.

The press releases are generally given by the subjects' publicists to the media, often in the form of a short statement confirming name, date, and place. Countless sources, including the Associated Press and periodicals from Time to the LA Times run this information. For example, Scott Foley's publicist recently released: this: "'Scandal star Scott Foley and his wife, actress Marika Dominczyk, welcomed a baby boy, Konrad Foley, on November 13th. He joins big sister Malina, brother Keller and their dog Frankie. The Foley family is overjoyed." This reached literally tens of millions of readers. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, if the substance of a press release has been published (even if it is published verbatim) in the news sections (i.e. it is not a paid announcement/advertisement) of a major publication, or picked up by AP or another wire service, it's not really a "press release" anymore. If a major newspaper or wire service has published it as their own content, I would treat it as a reliable source. There are, however, online sites that memorialize press releases without any editorial control of the content; they simply post press releases verbatim, sometimes as PDF images of the original releases. I would be far more cautious about using those as sources, and may or may not use them depending on the circumstances. Also, please keep in mind that press releases are not independent sources, and even if you use them to substantiate a particular fact in an article, you may not use them to substantiate the notability of the subject per WP:GNG.

In any event, I don't think Wikipedia editors have any business going through online birth records for personal information about living persons (and especially children), as I believe that raises serious original research issues per WP:OR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, and I thank you for noting what I should have, that I was speaking about editorial RSs that run the contents of a press release, as opposed to a site that runs press releases (where these sorts of releases never appear, anyway.) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A person can be the subject of a single press release and still be covered by WP:NPF. Your Kim Kardashian example isn't very helpful, as few children in the world are ever going to get that level of coverage, and even then not usually among high-quality secondary sources. "Kim Kardashianizing" the level of detail for children who had a birth announcement in the local paper would not be showing the proper amount of caution toward people basically unknown except for maybe having a famous parent. Multiple higher-quality sources that treat the material in a non-tabloid way will always be needed, or we're replicating tabloid journalism.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But your press release example that provides information about "their dog Frankie" is helpful as an example. The fact that it "reached literally tens of millions of readers" is not an argument that it's proven to be significant biographical material required in article-space. This kind of thing is seen by millions, but that doesn't make it less trivial for the purposes of making an encyclopedia article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

With all respect: Apples and oranges. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and I've never once advocated using tabloid content. The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, to name jut two outlets, are reputable news organizations with high standards, ethics and, equally importantly, news judgments. We're also not really not talking about a birth announcement in a local paper, but about public figures issuing press releases. I'm completely with you on the "dog Frankie" bit — the AP certainly didn't cover that!   : )  As any biographer will tell you, the birth of a child is one of the most major life events. Getting a dog really isn't comparable. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed Patel

Ahmed Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Siddddddh (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for the page to be protected, you want Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - though given that there is nothing in the article history to suggest any recent problematic editing at all, I don't think it will be granted. Are you sure you have the right article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you request it?It says to place a level 4 header on the top of the protection list. How do I find this list? Yes it is this article some days back somone tried to put wrong facts.This person is a prominent political personality. Siddddddh (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A single edit is not a 'High level of IP vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Thats why i have asked for temporary protection'. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read the Wikipedia:Protection policy - we require strong grounds to protect articles, and isolated problematic edits are unlikely to be sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Did go through it, for semi protection the policy says people who have recent high level of media interest. And this person does qualify this.'. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The decision isn't mine to make - but I doubt that your request will be complied with as you haven't demonstrated that there is currently a significant problem, and we don't pre-emptively protect articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Thanks its not premptive, but if you go through twitter and facebook this individual has been facing a lot of abuse and vandalism. And hence this request, hope it is accepted '. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I declined it, and this topic, which never belonged here in the first place, is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about content and source in a BLP article on Ariel Fernandez

Background:

• There is a blog called Retraction Watch (authored by an experienced editor of scientific journals and an experienced science journalist. In my view it is well-established and has become an important part of the ecosystem of scientific publishing. I searched WP:RSN archives and didn't find any discussion of this source.
• Ariel Fernandez is a scientist - his job is to do research and publish it.
• The article about Fernandez has the following recently-added content:

Three of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them: BMC Genomics, Nature Publishing Group, and Annual Reviews. Fernandez threatened to sue Retraction Watch for its reporting on the expression of concern by BMC Genomics.

(note - added Forbes source for litigation threats Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

• Ariel Fernandez emailed me (he is site-banned for socking) and questioned whether Retraction Watch is a BLP-RS for the content about his threat to sue them. (Note - Fernandez has a long history of socking and can get quite intense about descriptions of himself on WP so there may be some sock-responses and drama :(... I hope not but we will see)

So - based on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources, is the last sentence and its sourcing OK or not? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you have started a separate thread, rather than adding your comments to the existing thread above? If not, please combine the two threads, so other BLP/N participants may have the benefit of both series of comments and perspectives. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, i was not aware of it. i just removed it, as that was one of Fernandez's socks. Thanks for pointing it out.Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The removed section contained the following comment from Cwobeel: I have removed that material. If it is to be re-added it needs to be better presented using the available sources. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am Ariel Fernandez. To avoid misunderstanding let me state that several computers in the same workplace in Argentina may share the same IP. The article "Ariel Fernandez" where I am the subject appears to be in violation of the BLP policy at Wikipedia. It mentions a legal threat to the self-published blog Retraction Watch (RW). First, I never legally threatened RW, that information is false. The threat may have originated from someone faking my identity. Furthermore, the sources for this information are the self published blogs RW and Popehat. This appears to violate the following sections of the BLP policy: 1) Avoid self-published sources Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[5] See below for our policy on self-published images.

2) Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.

190.224.156.37 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (striking comment by sock of banned user. see [SPI archive] Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Note: this section merged with the previous one, since they're on the exact same subject. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks Richard I went out to grab lunch and thought about this and was going to do as you did when I got back. Thanks for fixing that. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the info needs to be removed for now. There are no secondary RS reporting on this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Retraction Watch appears to be to be a reliable source for statements about retractions of peer-review articles and associated academic kerfluffles. Experienced academics citing and quoting extensively from the sources they rely upon, with a 4-year track history of getting things right most of the time, issuing corrections when they're wrong and giving their oponents the right of reply in which to hang themselves. The materials in question appear to be being reliably reported on. I fully support the above recently added content, including the reporting on the threat to sue. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Retraction Watch is somewhat reliable (it's really an SPS...) about article retractions, but as they are the subject of an alleged lawsuit, we cannot use them as a source about the lawsuit except as WP:SPSSELF. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, i found another source: Peter Lipson for Forbes. 23 April, 2013 Scientists Should Embrace Criticism. And EvergreenFir based on your comments it seems you had no familiarity with RW prior to this. Correct? They are highly respected and they have supplied an absolutely essential new journalism, especially for the life sciences. Nobody was reporting on retractions and the like before them. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am familiar with RW and follow them on Facebook. They are still WP:SPS, regardless of how much I like them. Now Forbes is a strong RS. That they mention the lawsuit makes it worthy of being added to the article for notability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

EGF, what "lawsuit?" Fernandez made an ill-considered threat to sue in private email correspondence with the principal blogger at Retraction Watch, which RW chose to self-publish in their blog. The Forbes blogger then reported this as threats of legal action; I find no reliable source for an actual lawsuit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: The Forbes "article" appears to be an online blog by a "contributor," and comes with the cautionary notation: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." This is not a Forbes news article; at best it is an opinion piece, but more likely it is an unedited blog. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my choice of words Dirtlawyer1. However, the Forbes article is not in their opinion or blog section. It's in their Pharma & Healthcare section, which makes it part of their news. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not part of Forbes reporting, the user-generated article has just been tagged with a general section. It's one of the "contributor-model" blogs, and it's basically user-generated content with no guarantee (expressed or implied) of any reliable editorial oversight on the part of staff or journalists. Some "contributors" might arguably have independent claims to some reliability, but there's no reliability shown from being one of thousands of "Forbes contributors". __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: fair enough. Then that's SPS as well. So we're back to excluding the info? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

EGF, that would be my conclusion because there are inadequate sources to substantiate what the underlying facts are regarding the "expression of concern", but I would suggest you allow the other previous discussion participants to weigh in. The only third-party source for the threatened lawsuit is the Forbes opinion piece and there are reasonable questions whether it even qualifies a reliable source.

Remember what WP:BLP says regarding negative incidents and allegations: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Seems pretty clear to me that there are not "multiple reliable third-party sources" regarding either the "expression of concern" issued by the journal, or the lawsuit threats by Fernandez. The whole matter, as presently reported, strikes me as an un-noteworthy academic kerfuffle -- but please note my opinion may very well change if the journal actually retracts the previously published article in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as a long-time Wikipedia participant, a periodic participant at BLP/N, and a real-world lawyer, I would not accept either the Retraction Watch blog or the Popehat blog as a reliable sources per WP:RS, least of all regarding facts about a third-party. There is no evidence of editorial control (or legal review) of the comments made in either blog, and, frankly, regular BLP/N participants have recently disqualified far more scholarly and reliable legal "blogs" than either of those linked here. Just because this semi-notable scientist handled his dispute with the Retraction Watch blog poorly, and the blogger posted the scientist's email comments on-line, does not give Wikipedia editors the green light to link to these blogs, especially without providing any context from widely recognized reliable sources. There is obviously a dispute of some substance regarding the "expression of concern," but neither linked blog addresses those concerns directly, and both blogs directly or indirectly attack the scientist in a snarky fashion for handling the matter poorly with legal threats that clearly betray a lack of understanding of U.S. law regarding defamation. (One is reminded of the old adage, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.")

My advice to other BLP/N participants: remove the blog links and any reference to this dispute until the involved journal retracts the scientist's published article, or until other reliable sources criticize the article. At present, the blog comments don't even rise to the level of "allegations" because they don't address the merits of the article in question. My advice to Dr. Fernandez: consult with an attorney who is experienced in defamation matters (libel, slander, false light, etc.) under U.S. law, and don't inflame the issue with a predictable "Streisand Effect" by emailing the bloggers with legal threats. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: the snarky comments included in both blogs betray a less-than-professional, less-than-reliable handling of this matter. The online blog-posting/publishing of Fernandez's unedited and obviously angry email comments also betrays a less-than-professional handling of this matter. I see nothing here that rises to the level of being worthy of included in Fernandez's Wikipedia bio. In fact, neither linked blog even attempts to describe the substantive reason for the "expression of concern," and no Wikipedia editor participating in this discussion is qualified to sort it out. As far as I can tell, the journal that published the article issued the EOC regarding certain test results in April 2013, but the journal has not seen fit to retract the article in the intervening 19 months. Wikipedia has no business taking sides in this unresolved dispute, least of all by linking to blogs that posted private correspondence. I think it's time for BLP/N participants to show some of that caution we are supposed to employ in matters regarding unsubstantiated allegations against living persons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

and with this posting, I am outta here. blech. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Editors questioning Retraction Watch's reliability in these matters are welcome to peruse the first couple of pages of this search in which many, many reliable sources give the editors and their cursade for transparency in depth positive coverage for exactly the kinds of thing they're doing in this case. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stuart, the issue here is not whether Retraction Watch provides a valuable public service by publishing retractions issued by scientific journals, or whether Retraction Watch is itself notable per WP:GNG. The question is whether Retraction Watch is a reliable source per WP:RS for the underlying facts that prompted the journal to issue its "expression of concern" -- facts that Retraction Watch never actually provides. The only reliable aspect of the Retraction Watch "reporting" on Fernandez is that the journal issued an expression of concern. Okay. Let's analyze that . . . . What is the "concern?" We don't know. What aspect of the published article may or may not be inaccurate? We don't know. Are there any actual allegations of wrong-doing by Fernandez? We don't know. Retraction Watch never bothers to summarize what the "allegations" might be; it simply reported the issuance of expression of concern by the journal, and the substance of the email pissing contest, neither of which ever addressed the underlying issues. Well, what does WP:BLP say in such cases?

• Regarding public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

In this case, there are potentially two sources: the Retraction Watch blog that provides no details, and a Forbes opinion piece (apparently an online blog) that mentions that Fernandez threatened to sue Retraction Watch without providing any of the underlying facts. Frankly, given the sources, we can't even state what the allegations against Fernandez are, because neither source has provided any substantive facts. Moreover, not only are there serious questions whether the incident is "noteworthy," there is also a serious question whether Fernandez is a "public figure," as that term of art is commonly understood. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As a comparison, I think a watchdog site like Poynter.org does a great job of evaluating journalism from the inside and holds to a high standard of professional ethics. I wouldn't use them as the main/only source for a possible legal dispute they were principals in, and I think they meet RS far more than Retraction Watch. The only corroboration or evaluation of this claim seems to be coming from other self-published sources with less reputation than Retraction Watch has. (The "Forbes contributor" WP:UGC-model does not demonstrate reliable coverage, as they allow thousands of contributors to post without being subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. The Forbes name is not sufficient by itself to indicate anything about the contributor.) This is not a comment on Retraction Watch's potential "reliability" in other areas, it's basic WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF about a negative claim with potential COI problems that also happens to be about a BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say at this point this "controversy" is a classic he said/they said/etc situation that has received little to no coverage in truly reliable sources. I recall a discussion on this board about an SPA attempting to add similar information to Ignazio Ciufolini where it was agreed by consensus that the controversy was a spat between the involved parties that had not received sufficient coverage elsewhere and would therefore rely almost exclusively upon primary sources, which is something to be avoided. Compare this to the unfortunately common situation where a celebrity has a back-and-forth on twitter (or something to that effect), which we tend to omit as a general rule unless it has developed into a greater issue with secondary coverage and verifiable impact on the subject's life or career, no matter how much the fans or detractors of the subject(s) argue for inclusion. As much as I dislike the drama that has revolved around this article in the past (and much as I find it rather poetic that the subject now wants it gone), I would recommend omitting the information for now. The "Streisand effect" is not evident here yet in my opinion, and Wikipedia should certainly not contribute to generating it in any way, shape or form. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Concur with Dirtlawyer1 and FreeRangeFrog, in that information about the legal threat in SPSs should not be used in this instance, unless reported in secondary sources as being relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please note, Cwobeel, that the threatened lawsuit is by far the lesser incident/allegation of the two referenced in this "controversy." The real underlying issue in play here is the issuance by an academic journal of an "expression of concern" regarding an article written by Fernandez and published by the journal, which implied there may be a problem with the article or the supporting research. Retraction Watch's online reporting of the EOC is what prompted the somewhat silly dust-up over legal threats by Fernandez. Notwithstanding the journal's issuance of the EOC, nothing has happened of substance in this matter since April 2013, and the third-party reliable sourcing regarding the EOC is somewhere between sparse and non-existent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Richard Constable

Rich Constable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it may concern,

Please be advised that this office, The Law Offices of Brian J. Neary , represents Mr.Richard E.Constable. It has come to our attention,through our client, that malicious and unsubstantiated comments are being entered into Mr. Constable's Wikipedia Biography of a Living Person page.Richard E.Constable More specifically, comment alleging that Mr. Constable has in someway been linked to criminal or corrupt behavior regarding the George Washington Bridge controversy and/or the Hoboken Mayor Zimmer allegations have repeatedly appeared over the course of the last few months. The comments suggesting culpability are completely baseless and should not be allowed to be posted. We would therefore request that Mr. Constable's Wikipedia Biography of a Living Person page be closed and no further submissions regarding the above referenced controversies be allowed.

Sincerely, Perry Primavera, Esq. Of Counsel Law Offices of Brian J. Neary 21 Main Street Hackensack NJ 07607 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.190.160 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither the page you linked to nor Richard Constable exists as a page here. Could you find the actual page name and link that? --Richard Yin (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The actual article title is "Rich Constable." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no process in Wikipedia to in definitively close an article for submissions. In Wikipedia we report what reliable sources say about a subject, and the material you refer to appears to be supported by such sources. If there are specific sources that you may consider to be at fault in their reporting, a better way forward for you would be to contact these sources and request a correction. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Butt fumble

Hi. I can't figure out how to "transclude" (or even what that means exactly) a deletion discussion to the relevant noticeboard (as others have done in the discussion). I believe the article should be deleted (or shrunk and merged with the Mark Sanchez article). [8] Any help? Howunusual (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)