Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Skylab mutiny[edit]

The title "Skylab mutiny" charges that the crew, two of the three still living, of Skylab 4 committed a crime punishable by death. The article has been recently expanded to clarify the various conflicting sources of information on the subject and, just after that expansion, I moved the article to Skylab 4 human factors as we had discussed on talk, but this did not stick, with the move-back comment "no consensus yet reached - stop." I'm not sure we lacked consensus, but regardless, WP:NOCON says, "…for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal were to add, modify or remove it." It would seem appropriate to stay with Skylab 4 human factors until we can come up with that better title. See the talk page to join a discussion to identify what a better title should be. This article appeared on BLP noticeboard last month for both content and title. I believe the content issues are resolved satisfactorily. Please help resolve the title (talk). -- ke4roh (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your first sentence is about the most non-neutral opening on a noticeboard I've ever read. I'm inclined to oppose anything you suggest, as you've already established that you are being hyperbolic and hysterical about this issue. My advice is for you to drop it, go edit something else, and let the rest of the editors who stuck their noses into the issue last month hash it out. If you're the only one defending one particular position, then consider why that may be as you take a break, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
There are quite a few WP:RSes that call it a mutiny. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
For example, The Smithsonian Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing. I'm pointing out how hysterical the first sentence of the OP is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The article cites Smithsonian Magazine and several others, all around the issue. This BLP notice isn't about the body of the article, it's about the pejorative nature of the title and how that relates to BLP rules. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the title immediately gives the connotation of a crime being committed. While the technical definition may include insubordination, this is insubordination in the military sense, which is also a punishable crime. Insubordination in the civil sense is not a crime and is therefore rarely called mutiny. "Mutiny" is synonymous with "revolt", "rebellion", "riot", and it is these things a person pictures when reading that title. (Did they take over the space station by force? It's like wow, I have to read this!) It's a huge disappointment to then find out it was really just a walk-out, which, if that's what you call a mutiny then half the students in nearly every school and college are guilty of mutiny. When teachers go on strike, we don't call that mutiny.
I have no doubt that you can find this term in RSs, but also no doubt it was used for no other reason than to sell papers. Newspapers are notorious for using flashy headlines and pejorative words to get reader to read their stories. But we are not a newspaper and don't sell anything, thus there is no need to use such a descriptive yet inaccurate word just to entice readers to look. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be better and more accurate than the sources we use, using a bit of editorial judgment to determine the best descriptors. Zaereth (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I might also note that the "insubordination" part comes from a time when whaling was is full swing, and people were often "Shanghaied". Although that in itself was a crime, it was also a crime for the Shanghaied person to desert the vessel or refuse to work, in which case they could legally be whipped, hung by their wrists with their arms bound behind their back, denied food or water, or worse, which was common practice until Michael A. Healy was caught doing it on camera. Zaereth (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If you think that "Skylab Mutiny" is pejorative, then you aren't familiar enough with Western Civilization to comment on aspects of it with any authority. It's a common practice for people to use hyperbolic expressions for the purpose of humor, satire, or even just as neutral slang, with the full and justified expectation that it will not be taken at face value. For example, people sometimes say something that contains some innuendo and then immediately comment that it sounded "a bit rape-ey." People often disclaim that they are "crazy" or "going to hell". It's common wisdom that if the police look closely enough one's affairs, they'll find something to arrest one over. Partygoers frequently refer to each other at "degenerates". Political shifts, be they governmental or in a private organization's management structure are frequently referred to a a revolution. Arguments are referred to as fights, and large or intense arguments as battles. Loudmouths on the internet refer to themselves with some hubris (and are frequently referred to by their opponents with an equal measure of disdain) as warriors. Charming, heterosexual men are frequently called ladykillers. Masculine homosexual men are frequently called bears.
If you cannot wrap your head around the fact that the "mutiny" in question is the common name of an event, and not in any way a legal or ethical accusation, then you should not be editing any article that relies upon sources written in common parlance.
I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm simply telling you that the suggestion that the name "gives the connotation of a crime being committed" is complete bollocks to anyone who is capable of understanding the concept of non-literal speech. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? That's the argument you're going with? Non-literal speech is what is formally known as colloquialisms. We should definitely, as a serious encyclopedia, avoid any colloquialisms in both writing and, especially, titles. Zaereth (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, you've never heard of WP:COMMONNAME, nor did you fully read my comment because I already linked it once. I would also point out that WP:POVNAME (a section of a policy page) explicitly addresses this situation and refutes your assertion that the name should be changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
There are 2 questions: establishing consensus for a "common name" for the alleged event, and then the question of whether there was something that could be considered an "event" to be given that name. Wikipedia is supposed to dodge the second question entirely because "reliable" sources are conflicted. Given that there are reliable sources denying the event, NPOV and BLP policies suggest at least including "alleged" in the title.
As to the common name question, a Newspapers.com search for "Skylab mutiny" turns up nothing, suggesting that it might not be a common name. The first mention in that corpus of the two words in the same article comes from more than a decade after splashdown - April 1, 1984 in the Austin-American Statesman [1][2] (The irony of this article is that it accuses them of conducting a mutiny during an EVA - on Christmas day.) According to Google Trends [3], "Strike in Space" is 6 times as popular as "Skylab mutiny", and "Space Mutiny" (also a B movie) has more traction, likely because of the movie. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't "establish consensus for a common name". The sources do. I don't care one bit whether you refer to it as "alleged" or not. I don't care whether it really happened or not. I don't care how it happened, whether it was a scheduled "day off" or the crew refusing to do anything they were supposed to do. If "mutiny" is not, in fact, the most common name, then I don't care if it gets changed.
What I took issue with was the first sentence of this notice, which was decidedly non-neutral (and thus a violation of WP:CANVASS) and completely hysterical. Continuing to assert that the name is a BLP violation for that reason is the opposite of a good argument, and it is, in fact, such a bad one that it actually drove me to respond to it. So just please: stop with the hysterics. As long as you're not trying to push that ridiculous argument, I'm happy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It would appear that there is not a common name for this alleged event, then. (See the article for a variety of names given by a variety of sources.) It would seem to follow that the "common name" argument does not override NPOV in this case, and that a more neutral title should be selected instead.
Thank you for drawing WP:CANVASS to my attention—This is my first foray into such thorny territory, and the guidance there will surely help to yield a satisfactory result.
Please see the comments on the article talk page, where the conversation has progressed some. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Category declaring that Obama's birthplace is disputed[edit]

A recent edit at Barack Obama added Category:People whose birthplace is disputed (a new category being discussed here where there is a proposal to rename it to Category:Birthplace controversies). Of course there is (or was) a dispute regarding Obama's birthplace, but was it serious or merely a political maneuver with a side-serving of WP:FRINGE? Opinions on whether either category belongs on the article are being discussed here. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that we have the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I would definitely say it was disputed.--Auric talk 18:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not seriously disputed. We don't have to give a platform to conspiracy theorists when the conspiracy has been debunked as thoroughly as this one has. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with SarekOfVulcan - it's not seriously disputed. We don't legitimize conspiracy theories by giving them equal weight, we shouldn't do it through category additions either. I'm not sure about "birthplace controversies" if the category is renamed, but for a BLP I am leaning towards no. Seraphim System (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
If it’s added, I suggest we also add a category for Types of cheese the moon is made of. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This is no more serious a dispute than whether the Earth is flat or the Moon landings were real. Things like that do not belong on categories of major articles; they belong confined to articles about the appropriately marginal theories themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sandringham House[edit]

Article is at FAC but contained contentious claims about living people sourced only to tabloid journalism. I've removed them and been reverted. Next steps? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

MarchOrDie - In response: the claims are 1) that the Duke of Edinburgh spends much of his retirement at Wood Farm and 2) that there has been speculation in the press that the Queen may give York Cottage to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I just don't see that either claim can be considered contentious, let alone defamatory. I have provided sources for both, and suggested a wider range at the FAC page. By their nature, such commentary is more likely to run in the tabloid/celebrity end of the press. But I am not aware that such as Vogue and Harpers Bazaar are considered unreliable sources. And the York Cottage claims echo the Queen's gift of Anmer Hall, another house on the Sandringham Estate, to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
I would be grateful for an indication of whether the claims made are a breach of BLP, as I don't wish to engage in an edit war. If they are, so be it. The editor who raised the query has already removed them and they aren't essential to the article. But I would contend that both elements are useful additional pieces of information that supplement the article, aren't contentious and are supported by a range of reasonable sources. I've let the originator know I've responded - a courtesy that wasn't reciprocated. KJP1 (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The statement "since his retirement from official duties in 2017, it has been occupied by the Prince" was only sourced to the Express, and as WP:BLPSOURCES states "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" I think MarchOrDie's removal was reasonable. Whether or not this material is contentious is not critical to that conclusion, but the title of the Express article used as a source could certainly be considered controversial. The second paragraph is more complex, but once again parts of it were sourced only to tabloid journalism. I'm not saying that these statements couldn't be included, but you need to source them without using tabloids. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Most helpful. KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Hannan[edit]

Daniel Hannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fellow wikipedians,

An article to which I contribute to has entered a stalemate where one Greek editor who seems to be very enthused by one particular issue, regarding the Parthenon marbles, is continuously restoring his revision of the article which contains libellous and false accusations about the subject.

My discussions with the contributor on the talk page today failed to reveal any additional information he had regarding the truth of said accusations, instead confirming that it was Biased editing. Specifically, the contributor is accusing the subject of supporting "nineteenth century racial theories", when it is plain in writing on the cited source (an article written by the subject) that he mentioned these theories discursively only to dismiss them. Perhaps this fellow, being a foreigner, may struggle with the wording of the source in a possible second language, but it seems in my opinion like he is instead choosing to interpret the article to his own liking - which is both poor practise, and in this case potentially libellous.

Please consult the source, the subject's own article, to see for yourself the misrepresentation of Hannan's line of argument.[1] I also took the time to deconstruct this accusation on the Daniel Hannan talk page, which shows bare the falsehood of the contributors accusations.

Please compare the two versions below. It is my preference, given the irrelevant nature of the section both generally and specifically to his "political opinions" (since Hannan didn't state his opinion on the repatration), that the section is removed entirely. I also believe the selective inclusion of this peripheral subject out of the context of its discussion, especially whilst excluding every other column Hannan writes, leads to a heavy distortion in the article.

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Hannan&type=revision&diff=856795313&oldid=856791750


Thanks. Jean

JeanDePG (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


The whole section is pure WP:COATRACK at best, and the supposed quotation from Hannan is an astonishing misrepresentation of the source. You are quite right simply to delete it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Some more eyes on Daniel Hannan would be appreciated. The same IP editor (I presume: the different IP addresses all locate to the same provider, and the editing style is consistent) has made a series of edits which give me the impression of seeking to disparage the subject. They're not all bad edits, but there is a tendency towards WP:SYNTH and an WP:UNDUE concentration on some quite minor topics, plus a tendency to use weak sources (tabloid journalism, blogs, etc.). Would be good to have a third opinion in case I'm being too favourable to the subject. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Julia Salazar[edit]

Julia Salazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Julia Salazar is a socialist candidate for the New York State Senate. Many WP:RS have challenged the facts of her biography. One editor, who is openly opposes her, has taken over the page, deleted much of the NPOV material, added extensive negative material about those challenges, and accusing her of lying in Wikipedia's voice. I don't want to get into a futile edit war. I'd like some editors who are familiar with policies and guideles to help me. What's the best way for me to handle this? Is there a noticeboard specifically for political articles, or BLP articles? --Nbauman (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A few days ago, this was a WP:MILL first time candidate for office. Then it turned out that she has given variant versions of her bio (most notably that she immigrated here as a baby; in fact, she was born in Florida to a U.S. citizen mother.) I was, quite frankly, fascinated by this story. And edited as I read, deleting very little, while adding many sources. And sourced facts. These facts are shocking to Nbauman and other supporters. Understandably so. But not an excuse to make false assertions about my behavior and motivations on a noticeboard. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably would be up for AfD if not for the bio scandal. Possibly still should be up for AfD with the scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, now that mass deletions by candidate's supporters have begun, it would be useful to have some experienced eyes on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Flagrant and uncivil mischaracterization above. Reasoned and nuanced edit summaries were given for each consolidation of run-on/redundant claims and plain terrible writing. I have almost 50,000 edits across the project, but you're right, I'm just a hack partisan. /s. You have a clear bias and the way the article was written when I came across it had terrible non-neutral tone and run-of-the-mill poor phrasing/organization/formatting etc. It's much improved and all of the factual sources that still say she contradicted herself remain. The fact that you call this "white-washing" is egregious. JesseRafe (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
One of the biggest problems with this piece is simple bad writing. To start with, edits have repeatedly deleted from the introduction the fact that she is running for state senate in the 18th district of New York. That's the main reason for her notability.
Another problem is that, because you're trying so hard to disparage her, you can't even state the simple facts (eg that she described herself as an immigrant and then acknowledged that she was born in Miami). From your edit it isn't even clear that she lied at any point. I used to write about law. The lawyers told me: first, state your facts; then state your conclusions. You're jumbling everything together. If she is lying, and multiple WP:RSs say so, then the article should clearly reflect that. But your WP:POV and WP:OR editing doesn't even do that.--Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Icewhiz. Non-notable candidate for a state position involved in a non-notable birthplace "controversy". (Please look up the actual definition of controversy.) Without this huge scandal over where she was or was not born, this article really shows no signs of even trying to tell me about the subject itself; just about the "controversy" she is involved in, which is really no different than all of the other so-called campaign controversies across the entire nation.
I will agree that the writing is bad and rather disjointed and incoherent, relying too much on quotes and press statements rather than providing a summary. (Probably the result of over a hundred edits per day.) Lawyers give facts and then draw conclusions, but journalists and encyclopedias do not. That is what we call synthesis. What we do is give readers facts and notable opinions and let them draw their own conclusions. I really get worried when I see up to 5 or 6 refs for a single sentence, which just screams synthesis. I didn't go through them all to see if it really is synth, lacking the time, but from outward appearances it looks that way. (I could see using two or, at most, three --of your best-- concurring sources to back up disputed information, especially for an entire paragraph, but why else on Earth would you need 5 or 6 for a single sentence?) We are giving way to much weight to this "controversy" in comparison to the rest of the article, which I'm not sure would even exist without it, thus if anything it should be renamed Julia Salazar controversy. However, that leaves her just as non-notable as before it, and why have an article about a controversy involving a non-notable person? And that leads me back to my original statement. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ramesh K. Pandey[edit]

Ramesh K. Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ramesh K. Pandey reads like a puff piece. --B (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Please vote or comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh K. Pandey. Edwardx (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI birthname/pronouns at Christine Hallquist[edit]

Hello all, just wanted to let you all know that the article about trans woman politician Christine Hallquist is experiencing repeated attempts to change pronouns and reinsert birthname. While these come from IP and redlinked accounts, they also come from some established editors. Jessamyn has posted guidance on the talk page, and I have just added the MOS-TW template. Per the template, I'm notifying here.--Theredproject (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding it to watch. But you might also want to consider submitting a page protection request if the edits are mostly from IPs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Are business profiles appropriate sources?[edit]

Can anyone weigh in on if business profiles such as this Bloomberg one are suitable to support biographical content in an article? Some editors have expressed concerns that they're largely submitted by the companies themselves, and I feel that puts it in a murky place in terms of its reliability as being published by a third-party source. Is there a general guideline or policy regarding these types of sources? I'd prefer to follow a rule of thumb than leaving it as a decision based on an arbitrary editor's sentiment.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that we should use caution when using such sources, particularly for unduly self-serving claims. We might use them to report uncontroversial facts such as when a person worked where and with what title, for example, but avoid uncritically repeating "so and so was a key innovator in interactive celebrity marketing" and other such meaningless noise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Bloomberg research is reliable (other profile sites - vary) - they accept information/corrections from the companies (as well as anyone else - literally anyone can submit a report - and while companies/execs are often involved - this isn't always the case (some companies actually try to avoid such listings - but they get included anyway if they are large enough)). However as you can see in their report form - "All data changes require verification from public sources. Please include the correct value or values and a source where we can verify." - they require a public source backing this up (which may be a press release (e.g. for someone appointed to position X - however we would accept such a press report for such info as well) or a SEC filing) - the information itself is vetted by S&P Global Market Intelligence staff.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

H. Gilbert Welch[edit]

A recent investigation by Dartmouth College has found that one of its professors, H. Gilbert Welch, committed plagiarism. [4] An IP previously added the finding of this investigation to Welch's article and I both removed it from the lead and added Welch's own response. Eyes requested on this article and whether/how this content should be mentioned without violating WP:BLP (note that there are 2 sources, Stat News and BMJ, supporting the content, thus fulfilling WP:WELLKNOWN). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence M. Krauss‎[edit]

There is a recent controversy and what appears to be well covered events have been summarized by a few editors lately. More are discussing it on the talk page. I'd be grateful if editors more experienced with BLP than I am could verify if the new material is proper and if new talk page concerns have been addressed; there are few participants. The allegations appear to be more or less substantiated but the scandal is real with repercussions. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Donald Wuerl[edit]

Subject is a Catholic priest, with a possibly dodgy record around turning a blind eye to child abuse, but I do not see that the material being crammed into the lead can be allowed to stand without proper consideration of whether or not it is actually both cited and merits inclusion, given that he is a living person. The IP sticking it in is clearly willing to do so forever. I'm off to bed so I'm dumping this in your laps. Sorry. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Still a problem. Pretty clear the IP involved will revert forever, and in my view the material being inserted is in violation of the BLP policy. Could really use more eyes. I've requested page protection. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies of living persons[edit]

Watchers here are invited to participate in the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies of living persons#RfC on adding text regarding applicability of policy to persons with dates of birth unknown --LukeSurl t c 14:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Kevin McDaid[edit]

Kevin McDaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a section that has been removed and re-added over the years concerning some adult modelling carried out by the subject when he still may have been a minor. With the extensive quote in the reference this section accounts for over 50% of the article content; is this undue emphasis in an article that is little more than a stub of someone of fairly limited notability? Does WP:AVOIDVICTIM also apply here, as the subject was a minor at the time? Nthep (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it per the sourcing inadequacies. Nothing in a BLP should be sourced to the Sunday Mirror, and especially these sort of things. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

Massive issues with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSCANDAL violation and a concerted effort by multiple editors to turn it into a hit piece. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

sad reality of wikipedia. Best news is that wikipedia holds no sway, no one actually reads all the bias, headlines is what you need to attack and wikipedia has no headlines - just close this as a worthless attempt to actually action and install wp:npov Govindaharihari (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Can Wikipedia restore a fair objective WP:NPOV to this article, when the is heavy ongoing bombardment of accusations (note the UK Press is significantly anti Corbyn etc etc) ... this article needs unbiased Administrative oversight urgently. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian[edit]

First this needs eyes for the edit warring over nationality, persistent unsourced changes to personal wealth and any other BLP issues. Then, it really needs to be protected. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Is sciencebasedmedicine.org an SPS?[edit]

I started a discussion at RSN[5] of whether sciencebasedmedicine.org is considered an SPS under WP:BLPSPS, posting here as this is also relevant to BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea why, as there is a world of precedent for it being reliable. Is this to do with another article on an antivaxer? Guy (Help!) 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Marian T. Ryan[edit]

This article needs some serious help. An editor, Jik0123, blanked pretty much the whole thing, which doesn't strike me as positive--but that article certainly needs some serious balance. My guess is that serious pruning can make it more balanced, but maybe most or all of that content just needs to be cut. Please check it out. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Tucker carlson[edit]

Tucker Carlson is just one example. His article talks about his journalism career numerous times, when he is not a journalist. He has a BA in history, and never studied or received a degree in journalism. This is also true for numerous personalities at FOX news, CNN news, and MSNBC news.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8500:BFE:6D88:5F0F:E023:5B55 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

One does not have to have a university degree in journalism to be a journalist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the term "journalist" needs to be sourced, and that it's thrown around too loosely on lots of Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarkan (singer)[edit]

Tarkan (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think we are having a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY here, 'cause the last edits of the pending-changes-protected article (see its history) were done by User:Tarkandeluxe, who may or may not be the subject himself. What should I do? —Angga1061 11:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Angga1061; editing biography by its subject is not prohibited even though not encouraged either. If the editor is editing promotionally then that is violation of WP:PROMO, if they're adding non neutral content, that is WP:NPOV violation and so on. I see the editor is now engaged on their talkpage about what they're removing, that is a good start. Also, as an aside please see WP:SIGLINK and correct your signature. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dashama Konah Gordon[edit]

Hello, I have been attempting to help make the page Dashama Konah Gordon up to standards, as there have been a few times requests for deletion. This page is of a notable person who has been a public person online for over 13 years, as an author writing books, speaking publicly and also making and sharing videos etc. In this article, there are many references to show and prove she is notable, over a decade of references, and even some back to when she was in high school and college 20-25 years ago.

This last few days, as many editors on wikipedia have been adding issues to the page, I went in to help fix the page. And changed many passages that could be considered not correct and added many new references, as many as i could find. I worked very hard to do this and am dedicated to get it cleaned up and perfect so it can be safe from any issues or suggestions of deletion. This page now has more highly credible references then most other pages on wikipedia. Even though the subject became a public person before internet was very wide spread and popular, so there are some years it is not easy to find references, so in those cases I tried to limit the text so there wouldn't be text without references, even if its about her life. Did I do the right thing?

I want to understand what to do to keep the page safe from people saying its not notable and from people wanting to delete it? Its clear from the number of references of media appearances and even her speaking at the united nations and traveling so many places being in the news and tv, etc. She is a known person and should be on wikipedia, since this is a place for people like her to be referenced.

Please help me and let me know what I can do, and if there are still any references or text that should be edited or removed, please let me know which ones or do that yourself so it can be perfect and acceptable.

Thank you in advance for your help. 36.75.212.103 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I had a look and I am of the opinion she probably barely meets WP:GNG - but I'll be honest, you're not doing your cause any favours with source spamming. A lot of the sources included in the article were either not reliable sources, or they didn't have anything to do with the subject. A bunch more I pulled out because "was featured in article X" might demonstrate WP:GNG notability but don't actually contribute anything to the article. It would be better to tell us what the articles said about her. EG: "Teen Vogue said X's campaign to save the manatee was instrumental in protecting marine habitat.[ref]". I'll be honest, the AfD for this article is going to be an uphill climb in its present form. I made a start at article cleanup, but it needs far more effort than I have the energy to give to it. Last thing, please note that if you have a WP:COI you should disclose it immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Matt_Flannery[edit]

Matt Flannery

Matthew Joseph "Matt" Flannery (born June 16, 1977) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Name format incorrect. "Matt," which he commonly used as an alias, does not belong in the introduction with a persons legal first and last name.

Have fixed that, per WP:NICKNAME. Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Co-founder of the non-profit Kiva with his ex-wife Jessica Jackley. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Grammatical errors; past- and future statements. Did Jackley co-founder too? 'non-profit Kita" is that an organization or a charity? I think the writer is very self centered and does not focus on the biography and story of Matth Flannery.

Flannery is a co-founder and the former CEO of Kiva.org and the current CEO of Branch International. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sources? Too many claims, not enough legible sources. Ih had to delete more than half of their sources.


This whole entire biography was one of the most disappointing I've ever came across on Wikipedia. Many statements that were made in this article seemed over-exaggerated , Since the Author's references are incomplete and unresourceful, I am having a troubled time believe in any other thing I find on the apay.


References (7) http://ideamensch.com/matt-flannery/ (8) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-magazine/qa-with-jessica-flannery_b_99298.html (9) http://www.ted.com/talks/jessica_jackley_poverty_money_and_love (13) http://skollworldforum.org/contributor/matt-flannery/ (14) http://www.skollfoundation.org/entrepreneur/matt-flannery-and-premal-shah/ (16) http://ideamensch.com/matt-flannery/ (18) https://archive.is/20140707061943/http://women2.com/2012/01/19/effective-ceo-matt-flannery (20) http://www.techrepublic.com/article/kiva-co-founder-matt-flannery-on-finding-your-startup-idea-and-getting-people-to-come-with-you/ (21) http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/10/14/kiva-founders-talk-beginnings-finding-meaning-after-stanford/matt-flannery-ceo-and-co-founder-of-kiva/ (22) http://mashable.com/2011/09/20/kiva-matt-flannery-social-media/ ^ The links in the references are not properly referenced. The sources lifted are either questionable, self-published, and self-published and questionable on as sources as themselves or even generated content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angogaru (talkcontribs)

As a courtesy note, Angogaru has been blocked for sockpuppetry related to his activity on this article. I have nothing to say about nor any vested interest in the article itself. EclipseDude (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Justin Miller (attorney)[edit]

A public relations biography. Persistent addition of promotional content by likely COI accounts. Yet more reversions and page protection are probably warranted, but an AfD may be the way to go here, if anyone is so inclined. At any rate, more attention would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Shannon Sharpe -- sexual assault material[edit]

Eyes needed at Shannon Sharpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Tey[edit]

In this entry [[6]] Talk:Miriam_Tey_de_Salvador there are some never ending discussions without much progress. There is an issue related to "fall in love with someone" which is on the one side very difficult to demostrate and on the other hand not relevant for the profesional biography. It was asked for a third oppinion, which was also considered for the following proposed changes:

1 The sentence " Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta." is not relevant for a professional biography and could be changed to "Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she met the editor Miquel Alzueta." but I would prefer to delete it because it is not relevant if someone fell in love with someone else and it can not be demostrated. The first reference [7] [8] is not relevant because Miriam Tey was not married with Mr. Alzueta. This can be checked in the civil register [9. The second reference [8] [10] is not relevant as it is tabloid journalism and not to be used as stated in wikipedia:

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. See more information on sources.

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. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. The third reference [9] [11] is not valid as it is an article that describes the biography of other persons and is not focused on Miriam Tey.

2 the sentence "She is a friend of journalist Pedro J. Ramírez and fashion designer Ágatha Ruiz de la Prada." was deleted as it is not relevant to her professional life and it is based on tabloid journalism [10] [12] please see the notice above.

3 I agree with the third oppinion of Basilosauridae and the list of names is not relevant in the biography of Miriam Tey. This list can be included in the entry of CLAC. The sentence "This new institution received support by prominent Catalans such as philosopher Victoria Camps and writers Félix de Azúa, Javier Cercas, Laura Freixas, Juan Goytisolo and Juan Marsé." was accordingly deleted.

--Manlorsen (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinion column as a source for cause of death?[edit]

I posted this to ANI instead of BLPN by accident, whoops. Recently, a New Zealand journalist Greg Boyed died. If you had any experience with NZ media, the cause was clear but none of the sources spelt it out instead saying stuff like he died unexpectedly and was suffering from depression and with ample links to helplines. Recently I noticed as the main story on nzherald.co.nz (one of the major news websites in NZ) the top story was this [11] which is an opinion column on the Bay of Plenty Times (owned by the same company) which directly mentions that he died by suicide. Since I expect someone is going to want change our article (there have been attempts in the past but without sources), any opinion on whether this is sufficient sourcing for a WP:BDP case? In many ways the claim is not particularly contentious, as I said anyone with experience with NZ media has know it since the day is death was first reported. But opinion columns tend to be iffy for BLP statements of fact. Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Opinion columns" are usable only for opinions, ascribed and cited as such. They are not "fact-checked" as a rule, and unless and until a reliable source states something as "fact", Wikipedia can not state it as "fact." Collect (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Feuerstein[edit]

Joshua Feuerstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has seen some BLP-violating edits recently, and given that Feuerstein is a highly controversial figure this is no surprise. I'd like other editors to keep an eye on this page in case something like this happens again. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the whole article is about 4 controversial videos seems odd for a BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)