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.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

Nader El-Bizri[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The article has a lot of issues. First, it reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. In other words, it's mostly just a list of jobs he's had rather than telling me something about the person. Most of the sources are university profile pages, which are primary sources. There are also many links to sites that are selling books, such as or Springer, which doesn't give any info other than the price of the book. (Starts to look promotional.) There is almost a total lack of reliable, secondary sources, and without those the notability of the subject is questionable. In short, the article looks like it was written by the subject himself, or someone very close to the subject, and will need a lot of work to bring it into a state where it reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a resume. Only when all of these issues are taken care of will we be able to remove the tags. I'm not up for that much work right now, so we may just have to wait until someone who is comes along. Zaereth (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that you focus on- or provide more details about what he has done that warranted coverage. This is because the article is mostly about his career, hence the impression that it reads like a resume. So, you might want to give more attention to the Kuwait Prize 2014 he received and his ranking in the list of "Thought Leaders" in the Arab world. In this vein, you can begin the lead with a sentence saying that "Nader El-Bizri is a British-Lebanese scholar who specializes in Arabic classical traditions." Then, work your way from there. This sentence is just an example (and needs to be verified, since the source[1] I used is not definitive) and you might want to follow a different angle. But I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The article had a long section on "Ideas" that was elaborated by multiple editors over time but it was deleted by the editor who placed the tags and that is why perhaps it reads now like a resume. Instead of deleting the whole section it could have been improved (although it had citation like the ones used in academic papers). Anyway more experienced editors can look into this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean that as an insult, but there's a matter of style to consider. Take a look at other bios, like Eric Kandel, Barack Obama, Harrison Ford, and note how differently they read from this article. This man is obviously notable, but we have to focus on what makes him notable. His status as a University professor is obviously a big part of that, but how? And why? Focus on what makes him stand out from the crowd (his peers).
Then look at the references. University profiles can be a great source of bio info --up to a point-- and then they really just establish that he worked there. What would really be helpful are secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, television news or documentaries, book reviews, peer-reviews, etc... And, yes, we can even use printed books as sources, even if not available online. (I do it all the time.) However, instead of linking to the publisher, who is only trying to sell the book, simply give the title, author(s), publisher, copyright date, and, most importantly, the page(s) that talk about him. See WP:CITE for more on citing sources, but as long as you have all of that there shouldn't be a problem.
Same with books that the subject has authored or co-authored. A simple ref to the book itself is enough of a source for that information, so no need to link to a site that is trying to sell the book. You don't even need to link at all, if one is not available. You can link to say, Google Books, but what available on there today may not be tomorrow. And along that vein, it's not necessary to list the publisher after each mention of a book. That's fine in a list but awkward in the middle of a paragraph and too much like academic writing. Similarly, there are way too many parentheticals. When you put something in parentheses, that's usually an unconscious indication that it really isn't necessary information, and most of the time it can be removed, and this is especially true for encyclopedic writing, which should be a summary rather than reading like a textbook or study. There's a big difference between academic style and encyclopedic style. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau[edit]

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

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

Someone who understands what "conservative" writing is, please review my appraisal here:

Ok, another try:

I've come to conclusions about this article:

  • Though reliable sources broadly reported perhaps half the time that the child was 12, he was 13.
  • Though reliable sources broadly reported the child was a current student, he was a former student.
  • Though reliable sources broadly reported the subject was found having sex in a car and arrested, they were only kissing.
  • NPOV-secondary reliable sources provide evidence that strongly disputes the most salacious claims, and proves (to me) the lesser ones are true.
  • This pattern of subtle errors in reporting is probable for a tabloid sensation news story.
  • This pattern of subtle errors needs coverage on Wikipedia.

But first, people insistent on defending the most salacious facts among the spectrum of alleged facts reported (even by reliable sources, like People!) need to be admonished. A pattern of more conservative claims that are also more credible is absolutely enough to abandon the more titillating claims.

When writing conservatively, ask what evidence-based explanation is most substantiated. It's a super-useful way to think about covering both tabloid and legal events. But it takes some clarity about what details reliable sources provide about the core claims, and whether we merely count instances or examine evidence to resolve uncertainty.

You and I are expected at all times to treat other editors with politeness, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. That hasn't been happening on this article.

Also, the following statement is a limit, and an opportunity:

In this policy, verdicts (and other court documents, but especially verdicts) can only augment NPOV-secondary sources. In this situation, that policy sounds powerful. We have a massive NPOV-secondary reach on this article, but obvious divergences in claims among those sources. I believe NPOV-primary sources would absolutely corroborate the NPOV-secondary sources that provide evidence (and favor the lesser-saliciousness). All of the verdicts in this matter are admissable as sources because they absolutely do augment NPOV-secondary sources about these legal events. However, I do think the police report is covered excellently by the Washington Post, and police testimony is covered by the Associated Press. Primary sources shouldn't be needed, but we sure could go there! Mcfnord (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not inclined to dig too deep into this at the moment, I will point out that court documents, driver's licenses, birth certificates, telephone books, marriage licenses, tax records, census information, or other primary sources that may contain personal and private information cannot be used on Wikipedia --not even to augment a secondary source. BLPPRIMARY goes hand -in-hand with BLPPRIVACY. When you have a situation where sources give conflicting information, sometimes it's ok to point out the inconsistencies in the article and sometimes a little editorial judgment is required to separate the wheat from the chaff. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Mcfnord has already been told that we follow what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. And that we report on conflicting information with WP:Due weight. Anyone is free to see the RfCs on the article's talk page. This has nothing to do with editors "defending the most salacious facts." I've found arguing with Mcfnord over BLP matters to generally be pointless. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I get that impression. The above argument suggests we're getting into OR and possibly a little synth, even in interpretations of policy, but I haven't really looked that deep. When I mentioned editorial judgment, I was referring to evaluation of the sources themselves, not just the info they contain. (Not all are created equal.) But nothing I say on the matter could beat the advice given by Robert Shaw: "The task of the fighter pilot is to obtain as much tactical information as possible from every available source and then filter and analyze this information based on knowledge of its source and his best estimates of its timeliness, accuracy, and reliability. Some of the information received may be conflicting, and pilot judgment is required to separate the wheat from the chaff.... Overreliance on any one source of tactical information is a common problem and often leads to disaster. This condition can be the result of actual lack of available informational sources, loss of some sources (through jamming, for example), or simply ignoring available inputs. The disregard of some available information can be fostered by a tactical doctrine that relies heavily on one source to the exclusion of others, or it may be caused by sensory overload from too much information being fed to the pilot at critical moments." Zaereth (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your Robert Shaw citation is astute. I want you to dig "too deep" here! I will draw up the coverage from NPOV-secondary sources that shows core claims by Flyer22 Reborn are libelous. I'll stay focused on NPOV-secondary sourcing. It's just that NPOV-primary ALSO refutes Flyer22 Reborn's claims. Thanks. -- Mcfnord — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:115:F:2138:0:0:0:620E (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 has a very good reputation for not only adhering to policy, but also for making sure articles and, especially BLPs, also adhere to those policies. Now let me get this straight. We're talking about a child's age here, right? In many cases reliable sources will purposely keep such personal information ambiguous, basically for the same reasons we often do 1.) for the privacy and protection of the child, and 2.) because such details are really trivial. By that, I mean, it makes no difference to the story either way. We know he was in an age range that clearly shows the act was both despicable and illegal; the exact age does not improve our understanding of the subject anymore than that. So why do you feel this is so important?
In evaluating sources, we have to do that based upon the reputation of the source, along with its style, editorial oversight, neutrality, relevance, expertise, etc... For example, in the honey article, people are always adding info about how honey cures this or that, whereas peer-reviewed scientific sources that adhere to WP:MEDRS guidelines show little evidence of such a miracle substance. In such an instance, we can rely more on the peer-reviewed sources than the thousands of more-questionable sources out there. In cases like this, we can simply stick to the ambiguity we're given.
I'll also add that: "To meet the Supreme Court's definition of libel involving a public figure, a quotation must not only be made up or materially altered. It must also defame the person quoted, and damage his or her reputation or livelihood...". So, how does simply saying "12 or 13" defame and damage a person? Zaereth (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I finally had a few moments to look at the article's history, and all I can say is Yikes! It would take me a good month or two and an excavator to dig through all that mess. You all should really hammer this stuff out on the talk page rather than discussing it through edit summaries. Copy/paste the paragraph or section you want changed, then propose your suggested changes there, and wordsmith it until everyone can agree on a version that should be transferred to mainspace. This does three things. It doesn't clutter up the history with reversion after reversion, so outsiders like me can better sift through it all. It keeps the article from being unstable and possibly (even unintentionally) introducing new policy vios, and it better allows people to follow each party's line of reasoning. While most of us, I think, have the patience to dig into a problem, few of us are archeologists.
I'd also suggest (particularly to Mcfnord and Smmary) to avoid these wall-of-text arguments without any paragraph breaks, because it begins to read like stream of consciousness, becoming impossible to tell which point is leading to which other point. My advice is to take some time to summarize your points as briefly as possible. Aside from that, this is the type of story that really turns my stomach, so I'm glad we have others here brave enough to take them on. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I read Smmary so you needn't. I write professionally for 25 years but value your feedback. BLP experts are needed here, especially ones who aren't squeamish about the subject matter. Mcfnord (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. So you are saying you're her advocate? I think we can judge for ourselves the merits of the concerns, keeping in mind (if she truly is the subject) that it puts her in the position of most bias. However, I think she could help herself in taking some time to better communicate those concerns. (One of my favorite quotes is "I'm sorry for the length of this letter, but I didn't have the time to write a short one." --Blaise Pascal) Zaereth (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

E. J. Levy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of the sources are opinion pieces, speculating about the book using words like "led critics to believe", "if that is the case", "appears to misgender". These are not reliable sources about the book itself but mere speculation about something that has not been released yet. The only reliable report comes from the Guardian, which in addition to detailing the twitter debate notes that no one really knows how Barry identified, saying, "But whether he had always ‘felt male’ during his earlier female years (he changed identity at age 20), who knows?... Much of what we 'know' about him is really the Barry myth – that is, culturally constructed legend, based on hearsay, fiction and fiction-inflected biography." I think it needs to be toned down to reflect the twitter debate, but not to speculate on the novel itself. (It should also be changed to perfect perspective rather than future perspective so that it won't sound weird after the book is released, plus that looks more like we're not running an ad.) Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Zaereth, and add that the encyclopedic value of a twitter debate is dubious. A sentence or two may be due, but nothing more until far better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I didn't add any of the contentious information to the page. My additions mostly expanded the references. I removed information added by Hedgielamar and his sockpuppet JMB2019 that contradicted the cited sources (and who largely refused to participate in any discussion about the changes that were reverted by numerous editors. BTW, I've removed several additions by other editors that were also unsourced.) "EJLevywriter" uses the same attacks fixating on me and writes with the same style as Hedgielamar (including claiming the Bustle article says that the novel refers to Barry as a "hero" when it clearly does not). This seems very suspicious, and likely to be the same user, although may or may not be the actual author, E.J. Levy. Just want to have a record of the similar patterns in case the edit warring by these users starts again. As for the actual article content, thank you, Ronz, for your trim. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. A request to confirm identity might be a good step to take, and a SPI report if any further editwarring occurs. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Hopefully your edit will end the dispute on both sides. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Just so you know, when someone starts off with accusing everyone else of bias, I take that with a grain of salt, because it's almost always an unconscious confession of their own biases. I find it humorous how our own minds betray us. In cases such as this, looking at all the plugs both here and in the article, I have to wonder how much of this is publicity based. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As one of those "other editors" that EJLevywriter and Hedgie mention, I'd like to chime in with my thanks as well, Ronz and Zaereth. I also agree with Wallyfromdilbert that this writing pattern is EXACTLY the same as Hedgie's, right down to the fixation on Wally and request that if the article can't be "balanced" (read: portrays the outcry as limited in scope and misguided in its criticisms) it should be removed; further, this person is the second one I've seen on here to mention Sloane's given name (it's not in their username). The first one was Hedgie. Take that as you will. Regarding the article, right now, that controversy is all that Levy is actually known for - I feel like it's notable enough to keep in, especially with the Guardian piece, but we definitely need better sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The The Cape Doctor paragraph in the article seems reasonable, but it shouldn't take up more than half the WP:LEAD, I'd remove it from there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I am grateful to Ronz, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Zaereth for their very helpful corrections to this page purportedly about me, but several editors continue to mischaracterize my forthcoming book and me, in what appears to be continuation of a Twitter battle. I hope their biased and unfactual (thus unverifiable) characterizations of me and my book will be removed, and the editors involved (NekoKatsun and Wallyfromdilbert ) prevented from continuing attacks on me via Wiki.

Specifically: 1) these warring Wiki editors claim my novel refers to Dr. JM Barry as "heroine"; it does not and it never has. As I stated to The Times and Bustle, both of which quote me, the novel mostly uses first-person and male pronouns; I refer to Barry as a "hero" once at the book's end. (On Twitter, which appears to be the real basis for their edits, I referred to Barry as a "she" and a "heroine" only to counter those claiming only male pronouns could apply to that gender-ambiguous figure. No binary term seems to me correct, so I was balancing the ledger. My book should either be correctly represented or not characterized at all. I've not quoted sources here for Bustle and the Times, as I understand they have been repeatedly posted on the EJ Levy page and removed.) 2) I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term. (To call me "queer" when I identify as "lesbian"--and have written about same--is equivalent of calling a straight man "bi-" despite his published statements to the contrary. The broader category may contain but does not accurately represent the individual.) 3) Any characterization of Barry on a page that refers to me should be factual and unbiased. Barry's biographers all agree that Margaret Bulkley dressed as a man to enter medical school and the army, institutions from which she was barred by sex, and continued to live as James Barry throughout adulthood. To elide the necessity of male dress to obtain and education and enter professions is to mischaracterize the subject of my book. These facts are not disputed, and are--I believe--correctly represented on the Barry Wiki page, which is sourced from multiple biographies, including Dr. James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time (2016) by Dronfield/Dupreez. 4) If the Wiki page is to be used to continue a war on me (and the facts) by editors, I would request that it be removed. Thank you. Wikipedia should be factual, verifiable, and representing a neutral POV. These editors--(NekoKatsun and Wallyfromdilbert ) -- are not abiding by those standards. Thank you for your help. my clear statements about it contents to the Times and Bustle. I ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJLevywriter (talkcontribs) 18:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, I see no evidence of anyone campaigning a war against you. When I see statements like that it becomes hard to take the rest of it seriously. In my personal opinion, some people are far too sensitive, like an open wound, and this twitter debate is a wonderful example of this. (Psychologically speaking, over-sensitivity tends to show a lack of self-esteem, self confidence, and a poor image of oneself (or, rather, an overly negative perception of how others view them; see: metaperception), and possibly at the extreme end some personality disorder such as BPD.) You can call me he, she, it, they, straight, gay, bi, a sissy, or a total a-hole for all I care. Water off a duck.
The Bustle article is an opinion piece and thus is not a reliable source. I haven't seen the "Times" article. Is it the NY Times or Anchorage Times? Or some other paper with that in its name? Is it an op/ed piece or a news article, because any paper has both? It's best to bring your sources here so we won't have to hunt for them, but keep in mind that the more reliable sources you can find; the more likely this will remain in the article.
That said, the statement in the article that the book actually uses these terms is not supported by either of the sources. The Guardian, which is a well-written piece, and the Daily Dot, which is far less favorable, both show this is only speculation. We should not say it as fact in Wikipedia's voice when the sources clearly do not. In all, however, I agree with Ronz that the entire "debate" is rather small and not too widely covered. As such, its significance doesn't seem to rise to the level warranting its inclusion, given the size and scope of the article, but others may disagree. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaereth: FYI EJLevywriter is likely a sock of Hedgielamar. Not clear whether the accounts are the actual author (especially since the actual author clearly refers to herself as "queer" and not just "lesbian" [1]). The accounts also refuse to engage in any discussion about the article content. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand. For the purposes of this discussion only, I will assume she is who she says, although I would expect a writer to understand the value of paragraphs to comprehensibility. That doesn't invalidate some of her points. At the least, I would echo Gråbergs Gråa Sång and suggest moving it out of the lede, because we're giving it too much weight compared to the entire scope of the subject's life and career. Either that, or drastically expand the article so it's not taking up so much of the space. The weight we give info should be in balance with the significance of that info to the subject as a whole. And I've read the sources, which do not support the assertion that the book actually says this. This is all based upon stuff that was said on social media, including the word "heroine", but the book has not been released yet and no one (not even Bustle) says it's in there. (Bustle only hints at it.) And something deep in my gut still says publicity stunt, as there's no publicity like bad publicity. Zaereth (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the content of the article, but The Guardian source does claim the novel refers to Barry as a "heroine" ("The Cape Doctor by EJ Levy, which describes the individual born Margaret Ann Bulkley as ‘a heroine’"), although their source for that information is not clear especially as part of the header. Also, material about the forthcoming novel was already removed from the lead (based on a discussion on the talk page). The lack of additional information about Levy and whether she is notable have also been brought up there. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Shupe[edit]

This article's history is full of irony. It was created by the subject on November 23, 2018. That account (and another) have been blocked by me as socks. At the time, Shupe had been successful in a legal petition to have their gender declared non-binary, meaning they were neither male nor female. Since then, Shupe has changed their mind about how they self-identify and wants to be considered male. The editing became tendentious, principally because the socks had not yet been blocked and there were obvious COI edits.

Shupe, who was likely pleased with the Oregon judge when the petition was succesful, is now less happy because of their change of mind. Shupe wrote an op-ed in which they accuse the Oregon judge of bias because supposedly the judge has a transgender child. Black Future has added the following to the article: "Shupe has since stated that he believes the judge, who has a transgender child, should have recused herself from the case due to the apparent conflict of interest, claiming 'she was advancing her child’s transgender identity, too.'" and citing to the op-ed. I have reverted twice as it's self-serving, WP:COATRACK, and a BLP violation of the judge. The material clearly violates WP:BLPSELFPUB.

I don't wish to edit-war even if my reverts are exempt under the BLP exception, so I've brought it here (skipping a discussion on the article Talk page, I know).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Is an op-ed SELFPUB? If it is, then the sentence above runs into the prohibition on using such sources for claims about third parties. Even if op-eds are not considered self-published, we have to be careful about the parts that go beyond merely expressing Shupe's identity and go into claims about the judge, since BLP governs "material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page" and hence also comes into play when there are accusations that the judge acted improperly. -sche (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah this should be removed. Just because a person is notable doesn't mean that everything they say is due for inclusion. It may be useful to offer a general description of Shupe's beliefs about how the legal system handles gender identity issues, but it is definitely not encyclopedic to share Shupe's rumor about the child of the judge who heard his case. The wording also states that a rumor as a fact when it clearly isn't a reliably sourced claim. Nblund talk 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence per BLP. The user that restored it cited that the source is primary, which still means it should be removed as per policy stating not to use primary sources for negative information related to people. Valeince (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Just seeing this now, won't replace in the lede - is his take on the trial not worthy of a body mention? BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
All of the issues raised above apply to the body as well as the lead. It's a (negative) claim about a living third party (so needs to meet BLP with respect to the judge, not just with respect to Shupe; BLP governs content about living people in any article, even outside biographies of the people the material is about), it was presenting what is apparently only a rumor about the judge as if it were fact (so there are issues with the presentation and neutrality / POV of it and how it was added), and it's sourced to an op-ed by the article subject — I'm not sure if that's SELFPUB or not, but it means it's not clear that it's a WP:DUE (or in laxer parlance, "notable") comment, either. (I see someone has boldly cut down on some of the more general issues with the article, like the fact a large chunk was apparently written by the article subject and was citation-overkilled.) -sche (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sam Hyde[edit]

Sam Hyde's affiliations to the "alt-right" have marred his career and are clearly being used as a form of defamation by user Mrschimpf by removing any edits that provide context for these claims. Additionally, Hyde's support of pizzagate is not a defining trait and continues to be included in the header of the article instead of in the body of the biography section where it belongs. Mrschimpf clearly has a penchant for ensuring his opinion based viewpoints on right leaning figures remain on several articles based on the users edit history. This user cannot be regarded as an unbiased contributor or moderator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talkcontribs) 00:32, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

The 3rd of three sources for pizzagate / alt-right is not about Sam Hyde, he's only mentioned as guest of the Gavin McInnes Show. Allegedly mocking the holocaust in a linked video, that has been removed as violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. IOW, we can't be sure if that was a parody, satire, or seriously out of order. "NYUlocal" is used as source on various pages, so I'd assume out of order. The 2nd source confirms both, and while The Hollywood Reporter isn't the The Guardian, it's no nonsense, and one pizzagate suffices for a note in the lede, unless there are more conspiracy theories to report. The 1st source The Atlantic is even worse for Sam Hyde than the 2nd source, I fear that this is a hopeless case. – (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Sam Hyde and two other articles were already discussed here one month ago. – (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Abiy Ahmed (Prime Minister of Ethiopia)[edit]

To many, the election of Abiy Ahmed, closely followed by the release of political prisoners and a real peace with neighbouring Eritrea, was one of the most hopeful recent developments in Africa.

However, the subsequent diminution in the power of ethnic minorities in the north of Ethiopia has meant a concentrated backlash.

Recently, the lead section of this BLP has become slanted in a way that I personally find unacceptable. What do others think? --BushelCandle (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Editor Truth gatekeeper (talk · contribs) has been blocked for, among other things, BLP violations. This article is one of several where the editor's misuse of sources makes me believe a rollback - removing all their edits from the article history - is due. 2601:194:380:1320:8D96:B063:7218:E20F (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Happily, the opening section has now been reformed to be a fairer "executive summary" of the rest of our biography and subsequently effective administrative action has been taken. --BushelCandle (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Arvin Vohra[edit]

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

Marios Kyriazis[edit]

Is being edited to remove the {{autobiography}} tag, and to include "man of the year" designation and other vaguely promotional content by ‎Timenine, probably by a sock of the article subject. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This article has been something of a sock magnet in the past. I've put it back on my watch list. τ℗ʍ (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sock investigation launched. τ℗ʍ (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tariq Mahmood Idris[edit]

Tariq Mahmood Idris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I removed unreferenced death place and death date from this article but a search of the web shows that he may well have died, eg. and Can either of these be used to reference his death in the article ? or can someone find a reliable source, thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the statement in Facebook by the British Muslim Heritage Centre can be used, but technically it may be subject to interpretation as this could be described as chicken or the egg problem. According to WP:SPS the British Muslim Heritage Centre could probably be considered an "expert source" for that particular matter since they claimed to have held the ceremony and are notable. That would make it a valid reliable source. The problem is that according to the current reliable sources it is still a BLP and the policy also states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So technically speaking you would need another RS to state that he is no longer a LP to use it, but my feeling is that this is a clear case where we can apply WP:IGNORE, so my advice would be to go ahead and use it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann[edit]

My name, William W. Thompson, is used in the story regarding Ben Swann.

1. I am still an employee at the CDC. I have worked there continuously since 1998 and I am currently a senior scientist in the Division of Viral Hepatitis. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.

2. The claims I have made have never been discredited by legitimate scientific sources. I don't want to go into the details here because I am trying to adhere to the current gag order that has been put on me by the CDC until an internal investigation has been completed. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.

In my opinion, the current information in this story regarding me is libelous.


Bill Thompson.(phone number removed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to reflect the fact that Thompson still works at the CDC (at least as of the 2018 story), but the claims made by Thompson have been debunked or have not been supported by reliable sources. [1] SWL36 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The source cited makes clear that anti-vaxxers misuse Hooker's words - I phrased the claim in a more neutral manner. Debunking what a person did not say is really facile. "The transcripts of Thompson’s conversations with Hooker (and why they don’t show what antivaccine activists claim they show) are discussed in detail here." from the source cited. Collect (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this might be a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:BLPNAME and also maybe even WP:SUSPECT in a way. William W. Thompson does not appear to be Wikipedia notable and the only mention of him anywhere on Wikipedia appears to be that single sentence in the Swann article. Does mentioning him by name equate to any real significant increase in the encyclopedic understanding of Swannor this particular incident. Thompson is mentioned by name in the cited sources, so that information is there for those interested to find; specifically mentioning him by name, however, in the article seems WP:UNDUE. It seems the same encyclopedic information can be just as easily expressed and understood without the name.
@ IP (Bill Thompson): Please be careful in making any types of comments which might be mistaken for some sort of threat of legal action or claim of libel against Wikipedia or any editor in particular. Bringing your concerns to the attention of others here on this noticeboard is a good thing, but Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats, etc.; so, you need to be careful when posting anything related to "legal stuff" on Wikipedia. You also shouldn't be posting personal contact information as well for your own protection; Wikipedia pretty much automatically removes such information for privacy concerns, especially since there no way to verify that an IP address is a particular individual. If, however, you'd like to create an account per WP:REALNAME, have your identity confirmed by emailing Wikimedia OTRS and then post such information on your user page, then you may be able to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar[edit]

Ilhan Omar has explicitly said in her Yahoo News interview that her mother was ethnically Yemeni.@9:14 [2] The article currently says she was partially Yemeni. Shouldnt we take the subjects word for it in this case? I was reverted several times on the page. Magherbin (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The two things are not mutually exclusive. - Nunh-huh 21:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri[edit]

There is presently a discussion at Talk:Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri regarding the removal of controversial material about the subject, who is the Attorney General of Qatar. I would invite any of the regular visitors to this page to possibly weigh in on the matter, to obtain a wider consensus. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Laura Dekker[edit]

In February 2018, Laura Dekker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) gave an interview with American Sailing Association. The article is titled "Laura Dekker Interview, Part 1". A direct quote from that article is posted below.

Laura Dekker recently gave a presentation at a fund raiser for LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. As fate would have it, Dekker has donated her beloved Guppy, the very boat she did the trip on, to LifeSail. She has similar ideals about sailing’s educational value and soon the boat will make its way from New Zealand to LA via Fiji and Hawaii.

The same reference is used in the line: In February 2018, Dekker loaned 'Guppy to LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. [73] [1]

However, this line states loaned, which according to the American Sailing Association article is inaccurate.


  1. ^ Reynolds, Pat. "Laura Dekker Interview, Part 1". ASA. ASA.

Saikat Chakrabarti (FEC complaint)[edit]

Hello BLPN. I think there are inaccurate statements in our BLP Saikat Chakrabarti, concerning a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission. The problematic passages are:

  1. ... the attorney for the Ocasio-Cortez campaign and the political action committees with which Chakrabarti was associated, refuted the complaint as baseless ... – this clause has three problems:
    1. The sources cited (RSes) do not say the attorney "refuted the complaint as baseless". The sources say the attorney "denied" the allegations, not "refuted" them.
    2. Chakrabarti isn't just "associated with" Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress. He was a co-founder of both of them. Our own article says so in the other sections, but in this clause, we use the word "associated".
    3. The attorney isn't just the attorney for the AOC campaign, Justice Democrats, and the Brand New Congress PAC, he is also the attorney for Chakrabarti's company, Brand New Congress LLC (a separate entity from the PAC), which is a fourth entity that the attorney represents. The cited sources identify the attorney as representing "four" entities, not three. The LLC received money from the PACs, which is the subject of the FEC complaint, so this could be a key detail.
  2. Legal and campaign finance experts have expressed opinions consistent with Mitrani's assessment. This is entirely an OR interpretation (and not a correct one; the experts say there may be some minor wrongdoing, whereas the attorney says there is no wrongdoing whatsoever). The cited sources do not compare the experts' opinions with the attorneys' opinion. No RS reports that any legal or campaign finance expert said that the allegations are "baseless" or "refuted", etc.

The sources cited are Fox News, Washington Post, AP News, and Business Insider. To try to fix this, I edited the first clause to bring it closer to the sources, and removed the second clause, and posted on the article's talk page. My edits were reverted and consensus to maintain the status quo was declared on the talk page. I still think it's just a black-and-white issue of not accurately reporting what the sources are saying. So, I ask for more eyes on this. Thank you. Levivich 21:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the previous consensus version to add clarity and accuracy. The Fox News story cited did not contain any assessment by legal experts or anyone else of the strength of the claim brought by NLPC, but Business Insider, MSN/AP, and Bloomberg all quoted experts arguing against the seriousness of the complaint. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I think your edits were big improvements. Levivich 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Jim Wilkes[edit]


Hello. I am a paid advocate of the person featured in this biography of a living person. Per Wiki guidelines, I have posted a number of facts on the Talk page of the article that we believe should be added to the article, as well as a few items we believe are inaccurate or misleading and should be deleted (all with the necessary sources). I would just like to call attention to those items and respectfully request that a Wiki editor review them. Thank you for your time. AMcKnightTaylor (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Sasha Grey[edit]

For Sasha Grey two contributors agree that TMZ is an unreliable source, and that a recently archived talk page consensus about Dubiously cited information under "Personal Life"  stated in 2016 about TMZ is still valid. This consensus also explicitly covers a source based on the TMZ report. Fun fact, the two contributors are the GA nominator and the GA reviewer for Sasha Grey.

The reviewer suggested to add the info with reliable sources including Complex, The Daily Beast, and Daily Dot. The nominator rejected per consensus, and rejected The Daily Beast per RS/P (yellow) and the immediate removal of an attempted January 2018 use of this source; as noted at the end of the recently archived consensus.

Both consider The Daily Dot as good source (RS/P green), and the article is used as source on Sasha Grey, but not for the TMZ info. Likewise the nominator added a source for another fact, ignoring the same TMZ info also quoted by Mandatory. In a second review pass both contributors started to repeat their arguments unmodified, only one "find more" suggestion is covered by Mandatory. JFTR, an unrelated The Daily Beast  source is used on the "almost good" article uncontested. – (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Timothée Chalamet[edit]

Editors, many of them without many or any other edits to Wikipedia pages, are constantly adding that the subject (who was born and raised in New York) is a citizen of France, even though the claim isn't directly supported by sourcing. Usually, they are adding it right in the first sentence of his article. There is a source that appears to indicate he has a French passport, but, as our Wikipedia article on the topic states, a French passport "[serves] as indication of French citizenship" but "not proof [emphasis mine]; the possession of a French passport only establishes the presumption." In any case, it's original research and there doesn't appear to be a source that actually says he's a citizen. Sample edit: "To quote Art. 30-2 of French Civil Code, However, where French nationality may flow only from parentage, it shall be deemed established... Thus, born to a French father and holding a French passport, he should be considered a French citizen unless you can prove otherwise, not the other way around". This is the very definition of original research. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Without at least one source that directly states that Chalamet is a French citizen, we obviously cannot infer that is from the fact that his father is French, that he lived in France, or that he has a French passport. WP:OR applies.- MrX 🖋 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
We can be sure that he's an actor, so I've put that in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Moore (writer)[edit]

Stephen Moore (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs administrator attention. Two editors (User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Soibangla) are attempting to place violations into this article regardless of WP:RS (using blogspot, and a mediate source with paid pundits talking... not a journalist's report), WP:OR (stating things not stated in any source), and WP:SYNTH (by attempting to add their own rebuttals to his appointment, and to Moore's statements which simply no source is doing). I unfortunately do not have the time today to attempt to undo/change every edit against policy there. (I only happened to be editing the article at all since there was news of the appointment and not a lot about it in Moore's article for the public to read about... I wasn't out looking for bias) 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) Please edit with your normal account. (2) There is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. (3) It's OK to cite recognized experts, even if they are not published in RS (in this case, actual economists commenting on Moore's faux econ credentials). However, the cited RS in the article mirror the assessments of the cited economists (describing bipartisan condemnation of Moore getting nominated for the Fed). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to attack my character, just because I have executed my choice to not use an account to edit. I'm not violating the sockpuppet policy just by pointing out you're in actual violation of the most important policy on this site. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) User:Snooganssnoogans readded content in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V with the following edit summary "Both Menzie Chinn and Greg Mankiw are recognized experts, and thus OK per WP:BLOGS." The only problem with that claim is that WP:BLOGS itself states that one should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." - I've reverted that violation of BLP policy as well. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulation on your near instantaneous knowledge of our policies! I do agree that neither of the sources in that diff are acceptable for a BLP. - MrX 🖋 19:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: I am not arguing I'm new here just because I'm using an IP address. I literally just don't use my old admin account anymore. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, then welcome back.- MrX 🖋 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This source[3] can be used for Mankiw's opinion. A RS obviously reported Mankiw's comment immediately, given that Mankiw is clearly a recognized expert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Then feel free to use that source... but do not confuse that as meaning your previous source was actually reliable. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
My edit points out Moore "has insisted on television that the economy is experiencing deflation, and when corrected by panelist Catherine Rampell on this unambiguous error of fact, refused to give ground," which can be seen at 2:03 in the CNN video embedded in the Mediaite source I provided. I later showed you his quote from his paywalled WSJ op-ed:"The deflation began with quarter-point interest-rate increases in September and December." He also said “The Fed is sucking the oxygen out of the economy and has created an economically debilitating deflation,” which I will also add to the edit. Moore may have been correct to assert that recent rate hikes have caused disinflation or deflationary pressure, but he is 100% factually wrong to assert that they have caused deflation. The last time the economy had a single month of deflation was April 2015. It is certainly noteworthy for his BLP that, despite being corrected on national television, Moore has subsequently chosen to double- and triple-down on a fundamental and rudimentary error that a first year economics undergrad is capable of correcting. And the fact he has chosen to do this suggests that it is not, in fact, an "error." soibangla (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if you would login. soibangla (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
By any chance are you the editor who subsequently made edits that falsely asserted most people gave Moore high praise, which was not supported by the refs, and significantly altered a direct quote from a cited source? Just wonderin’ soibangla (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not anyone who has recently logged in. Period. I have no qualms with a single checkuser (most of whom I consider as friends still) looking to see who I am, nor the whole of ArbCom. You should be ashamed of yourself for casting aspersions about someone who has never interacted with you just so you can attempt to deflect from your, quite noticeably, deliberate violations of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, and WP:NPOV. We shouldn't be letting our hatred of politicians write this encyclopedia. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I encourage you to take me to ArbCom and fully substantiate this litany of false accusations, “deliberate violations of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, and WP:NPOV,” which constitutes an egregious personal attack on the core of my integrity. And be sure you prove deliberate. As an alternative, perhaps consider a retraction and apology. soibangla (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Administrator attention requested, again - The editor (@Soibangla:) is now making baseless attacks about me in their edit summaries while re-adding a copyvio: diff. Can someone do something about this, please? (IIRC this should fall under edit summary RevDel as well...) Editors/IPs aren't supposed to be facing this sort of bullcrap just because some editors feel a need to push their own personal political views onto this encyclopedia. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
You are aggressively whitewashing the truth. I am not pushing my personal political views. Please edit with your handle. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Your response here and your response at the talk page stating how you will "definitely prove it. There will be no whitewashing."... seems to indicate you have a very personal vendetta going on here and that perhaps you need to step back from articles you're emotionally invested in, to maintain neutrality. Making personal attacks on me continuously, like you did on the talk page once more, is simply unacceptable behavior too. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I submit you are projecting. You appear determined to bury the factual reality that Moore has falsely asserted at least thrice that we have deflation. Seeing as the man is being considered for appointment to the Fed, whose primary mandate is to effect price stability through money supply management, the fact that he has tripled-down on this brazen falsehood is of paramount importance in his BLP. It would be helpful if you, as an obviously highly experienced editor, to post with your handle, so at least I can make an effort to avoid you going forward, as I suspect you and I have a "history" and you can "see" me but I can't "see" you, which allows you to bait me without consequence. soibangla (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS is very explicit on this: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Adding mediate or other blog links from others is 100% against policy. --Masem (t) 19:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is "Adding mediate...100% against policy"? soibangla (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Rose Byrne biography[edit]

The article cites her appearance in a movie called "Neighbours" but that is an Indian vampire film. I believe the correct film is "Neighbors" by Judd Apatow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In the article as it has been, the film title is linked about three times directly to Neighbors (2014 film). Is there a link that is not correct? Why are you posting directly here and not to Talk:Rose Byrne? For that matter, the BLP is not protected; if there is an error, just fix it yourself! Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There was an incorrect link, in the 'Continued comedic roles (2012–present)' section. It pointed to an article with the British English spelling of the title (Neighbours) rather than the US English spelling (Neighbors). It seems these two different but similarly-named films were both released in 2014: the former is an Indian horror, while the latter is an American comedy! I've corrected the link (and spelling) so it now links to the American film. Neiltonks (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Örjan Ramberg[edit]

Please see talk page there! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen[edit]

Gianna Jessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no evidence provided to substantiate her claim that she survived an attempted abortion. The entry should be clear about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfreeg (talkcontribs) 14:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There are three citations and her own testimony. What kind of evidence would you accept, besides these WP:RS? Also, who are you, and what is your interest, since you have never before edited that article, or even discussed it on the talk page? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
According to the New York Times source, she has released some of her medical records. On those records under "Complications of Birth" it is noted "Born during saline abortion." Her claim is as well substantiated as any such claim can possibly be from where I'm sitting. Sperril (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Garlic girls[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

I thought I would avoid the curling project and bring this up here to get NPOV as to WP:Undue etc. The details are big in the curling world; being talked about by Vic Rauter and Russ Howard on the TSN coverage of the world championships. Thoughts? (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (journalist)[edit]

User:Spoonkymonkey, who is currently temporarily blocked, has been editing Jesse Brown (journalist) to re-add derogatory information sourced only to Twitter.[4] There are also reasons to believe he is in a COI situation Brown, which Arbcomm is aware of but which I am not going to go into here in order not to violate the policy on outing. Based on their editing patterns, it also appears that User:Spoonkymonkey used the sockpuppet User:Midlandino to edit the Brown article back in January. (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD with concerns of BLP issues[edit]

I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowkidar Chor Hai on the grounds that the article violates WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX. While being one of the many throw-away slogans, the title itself claims the Indian Prime Minister is a "thief", and that is just an absurd allegation made by his opposition.

It needs some extra attention.

Arbcom has clarified before that BLP applies on such stuff per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Principles. (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

adesuwa aighewi[edit]


This is Adesuwa Aighewi. I was born in 1992, someone keeps changing it to 1988. They have now blocked anyone from editing. This is a problem for my career. Can we please change back to my real age of 26 and not allow anymore changing?

Thank you!

AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesuwa Aighewi (talkcontribs) 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes[edit]

Gavin McInnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page includes multiple libelous assertions that are either sourced to partisan opinion-editorials or to articles completely irrelevant to the text at hand. In the "Career" section, there is a pattern of putting quotes and the editor's personal views together in order to create a specific narrative of events that casts the subject of the page in a negative light. Also, in the "Views" section of the page, there is a general pattern of inserting out-of-context quotes in order to try to prove the editor's personal view of McGinnes.

Thanks for taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talkcontribs) 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I doubt if anyone is going to trawl through those Career/Views sections looking for what you mean, there are 70 or so sources in there. I can see a few that are not great, but we definitely need some specific issues to look at here. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you be more specific DaddyoKrsna, on sources you think are partisan or unfair? Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The primary issue is the beginning synopsis, as it's what most readers will read and stop there. The label "far-right" uses as its sole source a hostile New York Times op-ed. The label "neo-fascist" uses a hostile Daily Beast op-ed that offers no justifying evidence for the term, a Chicago Tribune article that doesn't even use the term but happens to quote a Democrat politician as using it, a Lawandcrime article that itself cites NBC and the previous Chicago Tribune article as using the term, and a hostile Huffington Post op-ed of all things. Unless Wikipedia editors usually use antagonistic op-eds as their basis in creating neutral summaries of political figures, none of these sources are legitimate. I would also contest the credibility of the SPLC, but that isn't as big of a deal. The other main issue is when the editor presents McInnes' view and then shoehorns in his own refutation. See: paragraph 3 of "Law Sign Controversy" and paragraph 3 of "Lawsuit Against the SPLC." Otherwise there are numerous other examples of hostile op-eds used as sources, but these aren't as harmful as those I've mentioned. Reading the Views section again, it actually seems decent enough. Perhaps the quotes are chosen selectively to find the most obnoxious ones, but they are legitimate. Thanks again.DaddyoKrsna (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

E.J. Levy[edit]

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

User NekoKatsun has repeatedly (and almost immediately) removed edits I made to correct inaccurate content. NekoKatsun wholesale removed my entire edit and reverted the text back to a former version with incorrect information. I explicitly stated why I made the corrections, and offered citation support. NekoKatsun is using E.J. Levy's page to promote an agenda (a singular interpretation the real-life figure Levy's novel is based on, James Miranda Barry, when IN FACT there are many interpretations of Barry's life and gender, based on published biographies and articles, many of which I've read). Argument's about James Miranda Barry's life should be made on the Barry's page, not E.J. Levy's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprae Lac (talkcontribs) 23:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As a note, this user has been indeffed as a sock of a user with a declared COI. The sockmaster and other users have been repeatedly trying to insert the same edit against consensus, and have ignored repeated requests to use the talkpage. Any editor is welcome to review the talkpage and page history.
The short version is that Levy's page has a section on the criticism that her upcoming book has been met with (using female pronouns for Dr. James Barry); it's kept short and the sources are reliable. The contested edit cites a low-quality source (Bustle) in an attempt to downplay the controversy and refute the other, higher-quality sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 02:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)