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.

user from Saudi arabia Bright beems page spoil health Like left eye,left brain and heart

Dear Sir,

Whenever I log Time of india news paper to read some islam related topic there is briht beems from screen insert to lest eye and start spoiling the health. I noticed one thing even though live cric sites get opens and after that it spreads beems .Like me thousand of users are affected .please check this block this currupt sites from linking through your site. specialy explorer browser using .please try to investigate & block such sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.112.175 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We have no control over what the Times of India does on its website, and we certainly can't block it. Though given what you describe is physically impossible, we wouldn't block it even if we could. I suggest you consult an optician. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Turn down the brightness on your monitor to avoid glare from you computer monitor, especially at night. This will help to reduce Asthenopia. Rhumidian (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonnie Bishop

Bonnie Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello I am Bonnie Bishop - the WIKI page that exists for me was not created by my team and it is terribly out of date. I tried to make changes to the page but was denied. I would either like to get an updated picture and an updated biography on here OR delete this page and begin again. I have attached some links to pictures that I wouldn't mind being public domain. Please help me with this matter - I am mortified by this page!! https://instagram.com/p/x_BTfZsNOv/ http://www.bonniebishop.com/photography Thank you! 76.22.143.181 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bonnie. Thanks for getting in touch! We do have a strict policy in place on biographies of living people whereby any statements in articles must be backed up by reliable, secondary, independent sources. Moreover, articles need to conform to a neutral point of view. As a result, we do strongly discourage people from writing their own biographies. However, if you would like to direct us to some independent sources where we can find more information about you, then we would be happy to help by editing the biography ourselves. Thanks! --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 00:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Mahinda_Pathegama

Mahinda Pathegama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Barnes and Noble, 2010, "Sri Lankan Scientists", General Books LLC, ISBN 9781157343691 : There is no book by this ISBN:

• Most of the references are from local news paper articles and has no "scientific" validity.

• Google scholar site for the : https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mxuxRAcAAAAJ&hl=en has many articles not authored/co-authored by the person. And counts only 35+ citations, clearly indicating that it fails the notability criteria. You may consider the previous 3 deletions of the same article.

• There is no scientific articles cited in the wiki: listed below >

=Use of thermal imaging techniques in identifying target object characteristics =Remote system for microscopic cell analysis =Quantitative recognition of feature morphogenesis of SARS-CoV in diagnostic electron microscopy =Remote analysis of morphological features in diagnostic electron microscopy of SARS-CoV =Remote System for microscopic cell analysis =Biological cell interaction process due to electromagnetic radiation =Given the scale of population demographic shift, what are the practicalities of applying knowledge in a meaningful way for an ageing population? =Automated Sports-Talents Identification System and the establishment of National Sports Surveillance

• this citation ( Division of IT, engineering and the environment, BEng Electrical & Mechatronics Engineering Graduates, University of South Australia, [16] Retrieved 22.04.2001) just links the university website.

• This citation (University of Moratuwa, Alumni, [17] Retrieved 19.12.2001) just links the university website.
• duplicate citations: 1,22,36,92: 9,60: 21,84:
• many of the citations has no links to back up, just text.
• The breakthrough said to have been made by the wiki "Frequency-forced Digital Processing" is nowhere to be found online or in scientific articles. Clearly a topic without scientific basis.
• Citation "Creating Future Scientists Program, 'Profile of Scientist Mahinda Pathegama', 2015. [40] Retrieved 28.02.2015" refers to his own website. COI
• CItation "http://www.yatedo.fr/p/Mahinda+pathegama/famous/6ca706f6a16ccaa786ca3e202b366fdf" is an article appeared everywhere online shows some similarity to the wiki indicating some COI.
• The official website has nothing scientific but reiterating and re-directing to NASA website to which the person in wiki has no connection to.Surani Alwis (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be better posted in the articles AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahinda Pathegama (2nd nomination).--Auric talk 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Tanenbaum

Larry Tanenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like the subject's bio is cribbed pretty liberally from

• http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=1097101&privcapId=1446644&previousCapId=883129&previousTitle=ALTAGAS%20LTD
• http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/club/pageprint.htm?id=42325

There are some verbatim passages that would lead one to believe that most of it has been copied from official bios. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 05:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Randall Miller

Randall Miller was the director of the Gregg Allman biopic Midnight Rider, which was aborted after the film crew's unauthorized filming on a railroad trestle led to the death of a crew member. Miller (and several others) were charged, and ultimately Miller pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter. He is now serving a ten year sentence. These are terrible facts. Nevertheless these articles remain subject to the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. There's been a pattern of edits such as these (removing all discussion of the rest of Miller's career and adding opinion beyond what is reported in reliable sources) and these (on the Talk page, describing Miller and his wife--against whom the charges were dropped) as "colc blooded murderers" [sic]. The attention of others familiar with Wikipedia policy would be appreciated to consider whether such edits conform with policy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Such accusations are clearly not in keeping with encyclopedic policy, and it's also pretty apparent that the related article Midnight Rider (film) has been massively-undue-weighted with trivial minute details of lawsuits and counterclaims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this one does have BLP issues and needs more participants to decide what to do with it. CorporateM (Talk) 04:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Right now I see the Randall Miller page is scrubbed of any mention . . . BLP is one thing but it is a fact that he was charged and convicted and is in jail, reliable sources abound. At least have one little mention. Now on the other page for the movie itself, I think a major part of that article should be about the reason that movie is not going to be made . . . even if it is a horrible fact. Popish Plot (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Banks

Matthew Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been trying to keep Matthew Banks neutral and balanced following a post on the help page. The subject and somebody who clearly doesnt like him are both trying to influence the article. User User:Flat Out had now bodly chopped been WP:BOLD and removed the problem section most of the content away, can anybody with a knowledge of BLP issues have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "chopped most of the content away." I removed a section "Allegations of Fraud' due to concerns that it was a BLP violation and opened a discussion immediately. There are two issues that I am seeking consensus on, firstly the section confused allegations of fraud against Banks and allegations where Banks was the victim of fraud. Secondly, I am not certain that the subject is inherently notable enough for allegations which never resulted in a charge or a conviction to be included, per WP:BLPCRIME. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have responded there. Many of these sources appear credible at-a-glance, but are questionable upon closer inspection. The BLP is a politician and subject to the kinds of attacks that are routine in that arena. Needs close watchlisting. CorporateM (Talk) 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Juliana Jendo

There is an ongoing tussle between various factions over the identity and nomenclature of an ethnic group who are variously (or in a compound form) described by the names Assyrian, Aramean, Syriac, and Chaldean. It is common for members of one group to go on Wikipedia and edit the page of a certain individual to alter their identity. Sometimes this is accurate -- in other words, the person really does call her/himself 'Syriac' or 'Assyrian', and the change reflects this. Other times, it is a normative attempt to force a name on someone who does not accept it because the user believes that it is their true historical identity.

The songstress Juliana Jendo is one such case. Juliana Jendo self-identifies as Assyrian, yet an Aramean has edited her profile and replaced all references to Assyrian with 'Aramean'.

Evidence that Juliana Jendo is Assyrian:

https://www.facebook.com/juliana.jendo.75/about?section=contact-info

On her official Facebook page, which is public, she is listed as speaking 'Assyrian'.

In this video, she describes herself as belonging to the 'Assyrian nation'. Any speaker of Assyrian (also known as 'Eastern neo-Aramaic') would be able to corroborate this: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1649902768574582&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

In this video, she is singing in front of an Assyrian flag for 'Assyrian New Year': https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=803328796388111&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

Here she is singing in front of an Assyrian flag: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=655680244494696&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

And once more: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=813945841974681&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

Here she is wearing a cap with an Assyrian flag on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcs4T667BIQ / and here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=134900423374735&set=a.103132526551525.1073741825.100005643335728&type=3&theater

Here is she, again, singing and waving an Assyrian flag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baiN2muOGXU

A picture of her on a helicopter with an Assyrian flag on it: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=112606432270801&set=a.105035376361240.1073741828.100005643335728&type=3&theater

This sort of editing is done with a view to re-writing history according to a certain understanding of it, and including personages within that attempt. It is a violation of the principles of a page which seeks to accurately record information about an individual's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.108.250 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

These are all Facebook pages and cannot be used for anything. The BLP policy requires that every fact about a living person, absolutely must have a reliable source. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact-checking, and is typically a credible, independent, secondary source, such as a book, press article or scholarly work. I have removed almost the entire article, as it was all unsourced original research. I hope the article will improve by gathering credible, independent sources and adding their information to the page. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Labels "climate skeptic" and "climate denier"

Self deleted.

May consider reposting under thread at fringe noticeboard that I only just learned about, or at least paid attention to. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP issues in corporation article?

Note this RfC in Talk:MyWikiBiz at [1]. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien

My apologies for this being a long entry, but there is considerable backstory to it.

I'm coming here after being vetoed by two editors who have, in the past as well as now, expressed a strong disdain for any content on the article subject being anything but negative and uncomplimentary. Rather than continue to argue with these two editors opposing my recent edits and denying there is a problem with the content and its attached references, I'm coming here based on the instruction at the top of the talk page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

Currently, there is a discussion on the following content:

'In September 2014, Mike Masnick of Techdirt wrote an article challenging the accuracy of O'Brien's biography. The Irish Times next interviewed O'Brien with the subsequent article stating that "it is impossible to substantiate some claims." In October 2014, Susan Karlin of Fast Company magazine wrote an article that addressed some of the skepticism over O’Brien’s biography. During the interview, O'Brien answered some of Karlin's questions, did not respond to others, and declined to answer questions raised by people in the computer security industry stating that he was bound by non-disclosure agreements. Thomas Januam, writing in the French paper Téléstar, said that O'Brien's story is a "huge hoax".'

The last sentence "Thomas Januam...(etc.)" was added by User:Jmccormac since the discussion started. The content I removed earlier today (and reverted back in) was:

'In September 2014, Mike Masnick of Techdirt wrote an article challenging the accuracy of O'Brien's biography. The Irish Times next interviewed O'Brien with the subsequent article stating that "it is impossible to substantiate some claims".' It was removed because the reference accompanying the first sentence (a) Iis not an article, but an opinion piece that is laden with nothing but criticism of the article subject, ergo, it is quite biased and POV; (b) The source where the opinion piece originates is Techdirt, an online blog that is, by and large, a technology version of the National Enquirer or TMZ. For instance, the opinion piece used as a reference in the O'Brien article is by-lined as "Overhype" and the headline reads "Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius? (from the more-of-this-crap? dept)" The bias of the opinion piece blog-writer is obvious even before you read the blog entry. And, last I looked, blogs are not considered reliable sources, even if packaged in a hip,slick manner. The article link is here:[2]

The next sentence that is troublesome reads 'The Irish Times next interviewed O'Brien with the subsequent article stating that "it is impossible to substantiate some claims".' This is troublesome, because the article this is taken from was not making a judgement on O'Brien, nor were there any accusations. Reading the cherry-picked sentence, however, one would think The Irish Times was writing an expose on O'Brien. Taken in context with the article's content prior to that one sentence, the sentence doesn't read at all like it is portrayed in this Wikipedia article. The sentence in context reads as follows:

"When CBS, the network behind Scorpion, unveiled O’Brien to the press, one journalist asked the show’s producer why the network was investing so much money in the story of an Irish “supergeek”. Walter O’Brien has saved the world several times over – things he can’t even tell us about,” the producer said. “Walter personally caught the Boston Marathon bombers. This makes for compelling television. It’s impossible to substantiate such claims. It’s even hard to pin down what having a high IQ means. O’Brien’s was measured when he was a child; IQ tests usually takes age into account: a 10-year-old with the intelligence of a 15-year-old is certainly bright but isn’t necessarily as clever as a normal 20-year-old."

Presented as is in the Wikipedia article, it looks like Irish Times is dissing O'Brien. When taken in context, that's not what's happening. The editor (or editors) who added that content are using WP:SYNTH by taking that one sentence out of context and are leading the reader of the Wikipedia article on O'Brien to come to a conclusion: O'Brien is a liar. The link to the article referenced is here: [3]

Because I realize there is criticism of O'Brien of his claims and I know he has detractors, I left the content about the magazine interview of O'Brien -- mostly because it was a magazine interview and it gives a NPOV version of the story regarding O'Brien's contested claims. I was almost immediately reverted and the other content added back in. Now, there is an addition bit of POV added: "O'Brien's story is a "huge hoax".'

Take a look at the article talk page from here [4] on down. You will see comment after comment by the two editors (Jmccormac as well as User:Green Cardamom) who are fighting tooth and nail to keep this kind of negatively biased content in the article. Just like all the other times they seemed to be on a mission to "expose" O'Brien, they are doing so again with this latest issue, in my opinion. I'm not the only editor who has noticed it and commented on it at the article talk page. I believe strongly that the content I removed (as well as what was newly added today) is inappropriate for a BLP based on it being contentious and very possibly libelous as well as referenced inadequately and against NPOV.

Thanks in advance for any help, advice, clarity, or a solution that can be offered in regard to this issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have responded there. There appears to be reliable sources on the subject, but some tweaking is probably necessary. I also trimmed a lot of poorly-sourced promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 01:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, at the article talk page you stated, "TechDirt is borderline Yellow journalism, because it is written by professionals, but angled towards exaggerated and over-sensationalized gossip." Since the content using TechDirt as a source remains, how is it that there are, in your words, "reliable sources on the subject"? I'm confused with the apparent contradiction. You also stated at the article talk page, "This seems to suggest blanket deletion was un-warranted. Such debates should always include the article-subject's point-of-view somewhere." There was no blanket deletion. As I stated in this report, only two parts of the (then) three part content were deleted. They've since been restored and one more added. What's also troubling is the fact that with four parts in the contested section and nothing to counterbalance all of that criticism, WP:UNDUE is a factor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Belle Gibson

Not an expert on subject, but there was lots of obvious bad editing and BLP liberties going on. Lots of stuff about her being a scam artist that isn't properly sourced. It looks like there are RS's out there that do say she is a scam artist, but I doubt page is BLP-compliant, and can't fix it all myself. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Mende

Matthias Mende is a fake article about a business "magnate." I'm not contesting whether the person is real or not, but whether this should be a wikipedia article about someone that includes unsubstantiated claims and likely fake businesses (for example: CometCore). Here is an except from this "magnates'" early life: "By the age of 21 he discovered Dubai from a video his uncle shot during his holiday trip in the emirate." It continues about ownership of expensive cars, which is also not verifiable. Most of the material in this section refers to the ownership of products.

I can't tell if this article is an elaborate joke, or a scam. Either way, most of this article violates, "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" of People who are relatively unknown [[5]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.192.38 (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed it back to what I could fine in secondary sources. I'll probably nominate it for deletion as well. — Strongjam (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the same user just reinstates the page after your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.192.38 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Hofschröer

The above individual is a historian of the Napoleonic Wars.

[Material redacted per WP:BLPREMOVE — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)]

None of any of this, ludicrously, is mentioned in the article. I have previously (2012) posted edits covering the first two matters above, which another editor spuriously reverted. [Material redacted per WP:BLPREMOVE — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)] I propose that some mention of the above now be included in the article. Mr. Hofschröer has built his reputation largely around impugning the motives and reputation of the Duke of Wellington (in his Waterloo series and in Wellington's Smallest Victory). I do not think we can credibly have an article about a revisionist historian whose own conduct and reputation are under such serious doubt. It would be like having an article about Lee Harvey Oswald that failed to mention John F. Kennedy. Tirailleur (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We would exclude the information about JFK unless a reliable source could be found for it which satisfies the biographies of living persons policy and would, nonetheless, have an article about Oswald if he was otherwise notable. We're not here as a soapbox or to right great wrongs.

As for your specific allegations, BLPPRIMARY says that court documents and other public documents cannot be used as reliable sources in reference to living persons, so the first two documents you linked to, above, cannot be used. BLPCRIME says that accusations of criminal activity cannot be used until there is a conviction if the person is a relatively unknown person (and people can be relatively unknown even if they are notable enough for their own article); even if the person is a public figure WELLKNOWN says you need multiple reliable sources to include negative information. Remember that "reliable source" means a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, not just what you might think those words mean by their common English meanings, and that the burden of including reliable sources is on the person who adds the material. Feel free to restore the material if these standards can be satisfied, but also remember that the undue weight policy may also play a part.

Finally, BLPTALK makes the policies I have just cited also apply to allegations made on this page, so I have removed the allegations per BLPREMOVE. Anyone else wishing to opine on this matter can find them in the page history. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

mark gluck

• Mark A. Gluck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the evidence that Mark Gluck is dead? This appears to be a smear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.183.1 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Some rather nasty vandalism that's been reverted (thank you) and the text removed from the article history. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quint Studer

Hi all, I posted here last week with an initial request for editors to take a look at the article for Quint Studer, which I believe is, as written, highly POV. Since then, the editor who originally created the article and seems to be asserting ownership of it has created a fairly long Controversies section (see this edit), quite a large part of which focuses on detailed criticisms of his company (not all fully supported by the sources cited).

Beyond the Controversies section, my major concerns are:

• That there are multiple instances of negative personal facts being included without proper context and written in such a way as to be clearly derogatory towards Mr. Studer. For instance, much of the Early life and family section focuses on details such as his low high school GPA and his later alcohol addiction, without providing the context for these that is explained in sourcing (the source for this information is essentially a glowing "rags to riches" profile, but you'd never know it from the way the details are written up in the article)
• That the article introduction includes lengthy mentions of criticism of his company, and litigation against him (the latter of which is described primarily from the perspective of the claimant and doesn't reflect the outcome in favor of Mr. Studer)

Although an editor replied here last week and said they'd take a look, so far only one editor has passed by to comment: Jytdog, who stated his opinion that the page is an "attack page".

As I am here on behalf of Mr. Studer as a paid consultant, I'm looking for impartial editors to offer their thoughts and help to bring this article more in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. While I don't make edits where I have a COI, due to the issues with this article I have made an exception and added a {{POV}} template to the page. Please note that I will not make any content edits to the article, and will limit my involvement to discussion and proposing changes here and on the article Talk page. Hoping that editors can help, since this page really needs it! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the edits that Rhiannon questions. Prior to my edits, Studer's article was not POV as it primarily included what he or his company promoted about himself, including his addiction and low GPA that he has repeatedly disclosed. I do not have COI. I appreciate that Rhiannon has disclosed his COI and I will return to the article to address some of his concerns. (Unsigned edit posted by User:Wpwatchdog, 14:11 9 April UTC. Where's SineBot when you need it? Bishonen | talk 18:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC).)

The depiction of this person appears to be significantly unbalanced. Nobody cares what someone's high school GPA was, for starters, and the lede of a biography should not contain minor details of every random claim some organization has made about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a number of claims and arguments made via non-reliable sources, as well as a significant amount of content that isn't about Quint Studer, but rather is about the company he formerly owned. Studer's biography is not a coatrack for arguments about his company — if the company is notable enough for us to care about what the company did or does, those actions should be discussed in a separate article about the company. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Good removals, NorthBySouthBaranof, thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for taking a look at the article and editing those problematic areas NorthBySouthBaranof, I think this is a big improvement and really appreciate your objective view on it. Would editors here mind keeping an eye on the article for a while to make sure that this doesn't creep back in? In the meantime, I'm going to work on some research to see if I can fill in some of the citations needed and perhaps offer a few suggestions for new text.

Also, I'd like to apologize to Wpwatchdog, who I incorrectly stated above was the original creator of the article. I was writing my above note rather more quickly than I should have and got mixed up that he had written the majority of the current article vs. having originally written the article. I'm sorry about that and did not mean to misrepresent your involvement with the page. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Some the material removed from the article about Studer's life has been repeatedly used by him in his motivational speaking and writing. I will return that information to the article with multiple references. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be so, but it is either out of context or not relevant to a brief encyclopedic biographical capsule. I would challenge you as to the relevance of listing his high school grade point average or the minute details of his university admission. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

They are not inappropriate details. They are details that were major influences in Studer's life as he has explained. Please read up on his remarkable life.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss on the article talk page your proposed inclusion of trivial details which are not normally found in encyclopedic biographies on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

These are not trivial details. They are major factors that contributed to Quint Studer's life that he has written and talked about throughout his career as a healthcare consultant. As I added some of the original details about his life, it seems you should have first gone to the talk page to justify your deletion. Please explain how you judge the details as trivial when they were life changing for Studer as he has explained. I added this reply to the talk page as you requested.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including

• WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)
• WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)
• WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We can use some more watchful eyes on Anthony Watts (blogger). The key issue in dispute is whether Watts should be described as a "skeptic" or a "denier". According to WP:WTW, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. According to a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic":

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

According to WP:WTW, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number is actually zero, let alone a wide majority. However, some editors editors are pointing to a single source,[6] by an otherwise prominent and respected climatologist who uses the term "denier" as evidence that this term is widely used by every other reliable source (even if they don't). According to Wikipedia guidelines, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. A single source, or small subset of sources is not a majority. I should also mention that the two subjects have criticized (Wattas and Mann) each other so neither is an independent, source about the other. In any case, the key issue is this: What do the majority of reliable sources say about the matter? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

An involved editor has started a discussion on the the WTW talk page which could result in removing "denialist" from the list of words to watch. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please get more uninvolved editors to add Anthony Watts (blogger) to their watchlist?

We still have editors edit-warring WP:BLP violations back in the article. A handful of volunteers is not enough. Can we please get more uninvolved editors to add Anthony Watts (blogger) to their watchlist? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed both WP:BLP violations.[7] Can we please have more editors watch this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'vae had a close look, and I've concluded that you were mistaken in perceiving a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on what I know I agree, but AQuestForKnowledge might yet provide an answer to my request for his methodology details. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke (again)

Legitimate edits to the article on Matthew VanDyke are being consistently reverted without reasonable justification or consensus on the relevant Talk Page. The issues have previously been discussed on the BLPN. The reverting editors have not responded positively to attempts to discuss the issues (see User talk:Instruisto and User talk:David Gerard). The article as it stands is unbalanced and omits material which I suggest is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented in line with WP policy. I have spuriously been accused of bias by an editor who is confusing WP Policy with "journalistic standards". Intervention desperately required from experienced editors not previously involved with these discussions. Thanks. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This article has been previously discussed at BLP/N with no formal resolution:

• Archive 165, 22-28 Nov 2012
• Archive 167, 25 Dec 2012
• Archive 220, 19-27 March 2015

As an occasional editor to this article, I would note that the two editors mentioned above, David Gerard and Instruisto, have been repeatedly deleting edits that provide criticism of VanDyke that seem to be properly sourced. I have formerly noted that Gerard's first edits to this article were in response to the subject's expressions of discontent with the article and his subsequent edits to this article have almost entirely consisted of deletions. The recent contributions by User:Instruisto (since July 2014), in like manner, have been exclusively focused on this article or articles related to Matthew VanDyke, providing what seems to be a clear case of edits by a Single Purpose Account. Given both editors' heavy concentration on deleting criticism of VanDyke and Gerard's declaration of being drawn to edit the article by the subjects' criticism, it raises suspicions of a possible Conflict of Interest.

Few editors are involved in this article and repeated appeals to this noticeboard have gone unanswered. I request that editors with expertise in WP:BLP and/or WP:COI would address the controversy here (or on the article's talk page). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The edits have been discussed and Slugfilm's sources and edits have been largely refuted and disagreed with by other participants. But I could be wrong - more eyes would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Only two Users have disagreed with my proposed edits (David Gerard and Instruisto) who - as suggested by SteveMcCluskey above - appear to have a deletionist agenda. The position of Users who have expressed support for or objection to the 3 debated issues (at least in principle, subject to review of final wording) can be summarised as follows:

Issue	For	Against	Consensus?
1. Removal of reference to Che Guevara	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aronzak	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for deletion
2. Inclusion of criticism from Director of CPJ	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aronzak, JFHJr, Amadscientist	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for inclusion
3. Inclusion of critical media reviews	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aircorn	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for inclusion

This summary is based on a review of discussions on this Talk Page and the archived BLPN discussions. For good measure, I have contacted each of the Users cited above to ask them to confirm if this summary correctly reflects their positions. - Slugfilm (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

les garland

Les Garland was NOT co-founder of MTV he was hired as Talent and Acquisitions after Carolyn B. Baker that is me was a co-founder with John Sykes who was part of the team also . Les Garland came to MTV after it was on air a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV As programming chief, Robert W. Pittman recruited and managed a team for the launch that included Tom Freston (who succeeded Pittman as CEO of MTV Networks), Fred Seibert, John Sykes, Carolyn Baker (original head of talent and acquisition),[14] Marshall Cohen (original head of research),[15] Gail Sparrow (of talent and acquisition), Sue Steinberg (executive producer),[16] Julian Goldberg, Steve Lawrence, Geoff Bolton; studio producers and MTV News writers/associate producers Liz Nealon, Nancy LaPook and Robin Zorn; Steve Casey (creator of the name "MTV" and its first program director),[17] Marcy Brahman, Ronald E. "Buzz" Brindle, and Robert Morton. Kenneth M. Miller is credited as being the first technical director to officially launch MTV from its New York City-based network operations facility.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C52A:2900:2092:45EC:24B9:94E6 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are reliable sources out there (including, for example, this one and this one which predates our article) which refer to him as a co-founder of MTV. There are many problems with the Les Garland article, one being its length without inline references but a spate of end-of-article references, which means that it would almost certainly survive an attempt to delete it and start over, but also means that someone is going to have to take the time to work through them one at a time, properly provide inline references, and cut out all the puffery. Part of the problem is that co-founder is a fairly elastic term. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am a quack vs my work is regarded as quackery

I've just run into an interpretation of BLP that is new to me. I'm intentionally writing in the abstract to focus on the principle without focus on that particular content dispute. If other eds from that other dispute come over here, hopefully they will agree to discuss the principles in the abstract rather than make WP:MULTI problems by hijacking this thread to continue that content dispute.

In the abstract then....

As I understand WP:BLP, even though it is true, an article about me can not say

1. NewsAndEventsGuy is a quack.cite my wife, the world's most reliable source on such matters

Now let us suppose that at least half of my notability derives from my Wikipedia work. Since BLP prevents me from being directly called a quack, is it ok to instead write

2. NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded as quackery?same cite

But wait. Let's add inline attribution to #2

3. NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded by his wife as quackery?same cite

Finally, let's say instead that we have competing sources. Some reliable sources speak of my wikipedia work as reasoned and useful, but my wife and others still thinks it's quackery. Can we say

4. NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded as valuable by the famous JoShmo, and by his wife as quackery. same cite plus one from JoShmo

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC) {{od}
Discussion

• Comment by NAEG

1. No (obvious) 2. No ("It is our choices that define us." - Albus Dumbledore.) 3. Probably. Inline attribution seems to cure the problem in #2. 4. Fine, it's stated with good in line attribution and citation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Depending on what reliable sources say, either 2, 3, or 4 can be acceptable. If multiple sources define your work as quackery, and the only sources supporting your work are Time Cube guy and Silver RavenWolf, then 2 is totally fine. If very little is written about your work, but again, no mainstream sources support it, 3 might be better. If there are variety of views in reliable sources, then 4 would probably be best.

There are some cases where 1 could be acceptable, in extreme cases of 2 where the sources explicitly call you a quack because of your work being quackery. For example, Mark Dice, David Duke, and Alex Jones (radio host) are explicitly called conspiracy theorists, and Duke is also called a Neo-Nazi.

Of course, 4 can also be completely inappropriate. For example, if someone added to the Barack Obama article that some Fox news host thinks he's a Muslim, but Obama says he's Christian, that'd be WP:BLP-violating case of WP:GEVAL.

TL;DR: it is entirely a case-by-case issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• 4 seems best given what you describe, but it's a case by case basis. However, there are some rules of thumb. If there is a large number of reliable sources that overwhelmingly say A is a quack, then 1 is OK. Same for 2, if a large number of RS state so, then it's OK. If a small number, and/or if sources are not iron-clad, then 3. (Large and small here should be considered with reference to how notable a person is; e.g. Many more people write about Obama, than write about Michel Camdessus, so the number of RS necessary to show a consensus of reliable opinion would be less for the latter.) If sources are mixed, then 4. But Ian is right, always be mindful of due weight WP:DUE. LK (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Can I ask your opinion about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin It says in the lede he has a view regarded as quackery. I asked on the article talk page how appropriate it is to use term "quackery". I suppose it just depends on reliable sources? Popish Plot (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That guy? If any of the sources call him a quack directly, I'd recommend following suit. Otherwise, calling his work quackery is fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think they call him a quack and also say his work is quackery. Either way I guess quackage in some form is worthy of being in the lede. And not a major issue. Thanks. Popish Plot (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren RfC is being fought over, please give input on ground rules

Elizabeth Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Starting a few days ago, contentious wholesale changes have been made to a section in the Elizabeth Warren article. I felt the changes were being pushed through despite objections, and that the changes were poorly sourced, against previous consensus, and potentially libelous. I reverted to a stable version from a few days ago before the back and forth, and called a RfC to establish consensus. Unfortunately the RfC process itself is now being disputed. It would help if the people from this board, who are more experienced in BLP RfCs, could comment on the article talk page and lay down some ground rules, as the whole thing is just a mess right now. Much thanks, LK (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lawrencekhoo: You might consider contacting an admin for a neutral review of the current RfC. There's a lot of crap flying around and frankly it needs the attention of someone very familiar with BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but surely there are some BLP-interested admins here? Could one drop by and lay down some ground rules? LK (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've full protected Elizabeth Warren for the next three days. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dragons flight. There are some concerning comments on the talk page if you have time. If not, no problem. I think the page protection sends a message that recent behavior/edit warring in general was unacceptable and hopefully that will translate into something at the talk page. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Musad Mohammed Al aiban

Musaad bin Mohammed Al Aiban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article contains a lot of factual inaccuracies and mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:99c2:3e00:d997:5ef3:bc3e:5db6 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Please specify your concerns. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Judith Miller

The name "Wilson" is invoked, in regards to having written a New York Times editorial, as though he had been previously introduced in the article, which he hadn't been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.125.122 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, maybe all it needs is to add "Joseph" in front of the name "Wilson", I am pretty sure that is the wilson being referred to. Shouldn't be a controversial edit in that case. Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've posted an edit request over at the article talk page on this. Just putting Joseph in won't fix it because that still doesn't answer the question of "Which Joseph Wilson editorial and why is it significant?" Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see good point. Popish Plot (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox technical request

I'm not sure this is the right venue, but it seemed the closest from the list. Some time ago, consensus was reached to deprecate the "Influences" and "Influenced" fields in Template:Infobox person since they had a long history of being abused by fans and others; the template now says "No longer supported."

However, there are dozens of subordinate templates for different professions. These can only be edited by admins, and propagating the change hasn't been gotten around to. Therefore, the original issue that the consensus was supposed to solve is still contentious in, particularly, articles about comedians. Could an admin please propagate this "Infobox person" change to at least Template:Infobox comedian? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links to the prior consensus, and diff(s) for the changes to {{Infobox person}}. Dragons flight (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jon Hamm

I've reverted several user attempts to add a blurb about a gossip magazine's recent revelation that Jon Hamm was arrested in 1990 when he was in college. Yes, the material can be sourced, but it seems like trivial gossip to me that likely violates WP:WEIGHT and possibly violates WP:BLP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)