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:



Incorrect information about me on Wikipedia Ram Bahadur Bomjon page (and yet again and again)[edit]

The article Ram Bahadur Bomjon mentions my name Zsuzsanna Takacs as one of the victims of Ram Bomjon. Yet the information given in the article is untrue and based on a very dubious new-age style personal blog source (http://lalitmag.com/the-eternal/) while there had bee published numerous serious Nepali and Western media articles about my case, which are accurate. Moreover, this very propaganda source writes this: "We already know from first hand accounts that stories about kidnapping, etc, are all false… I carry the wind that the universe blows." By this the person who edited the article wanted to manipulate with the readers and try to give a sense that my kidnapping, torture, beatings and rape were made up. I protest against Wikipedia using their pages as a propagnda tool for a cult which caused my all-life handicap and caused hellish suffering to me and my fellow victims! Please correct the untrue information as myself am that victim and know best and replace it with a quote from one of the below links. This Wikipadia article had been a tool of manipulation by Bomjon's followers repeatedly, always sticking inside some of their own sources to alter the very clear information from dozens of mainstream media links.

This whole paragraph is not true:

"In 2012 Nepal Police announced that they had rescued a Slovak woman from Bomjon's followers. The woman had been held captive for over two months.[14][15] A Slovakian woman called Zsuzsanna Takacs had been taken from a hotel by two men of Bomjon on a motorcycle and kept tied to a tree for three months, accused of practicing witchcraft to disturb the Boy’s meditation. When she was released she had a broken arm[16]. A week after her release, Bomjon's siblings accused him of holding his brothers captive overnight, and for beating one of his brothers and his sister.[17] Soon after, followers of Bomjon assaulted five journalists and destroyed their cameras after they had recorded one of Bomjon's sermons.[14]"

1, It was not the Nepali Police who rescued me! Nepali Police cooperated with Bomjon. I had been released only due to the pressure of media and my foreigner friends, and only after the 5 journalists had arrived to Bomjon's Maitri Puja to investigate my whereabouts (and their cameras were broken by them). So the chronology in the article is wrong: First journalists arrived, then I was released by Bomjon due to the pressure and not rescued by police. See also

2, I was not rescued from Bamjan's followers only, but from Bamjan himself! Followers did not act separately, but at the order of Bamjan and he was the main torturer.

3, I had been held captive 3 months from 28 Dec 2011 till 24 March 2012, not just "over two months".

4,I was not "taken from my hotel" as I did not even live at any hotel at that time, I lived in Simara's Buddhist monastery! I had been kidnapped from the highway road at Halkhoriya Jungle! See "She stayed in a local hotel for some time before moving to a monastery in Simara."

5, Bomjon kept his siblings hostage 5 days and not "overnight"

Two women held captive in Bamjan's ashram Bamjan's aides free Slovak woman Buddha's men detain two women Buddha Boy men detain two women One foreign and one Nepali woman held captive

ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna TakacsZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) The Halkhoriya Times — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talkcontribs) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MAny of your link s do not seem to be working.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I also note this edit by you [[1]] at RSN, these all contradict some of your claims above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need to name names of alleged victims of crimes in a case like this? Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
No we do not need to, but that is not the issue here it is factual accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

ZsuzsannaTakacs, although that Talk page is quite long, activity there of late seems to be minimal. Perhaps that is the best place for this discussion? I suggest that you embrace the spirit of WP:BRD. That is, boldly make some edits and/or revert those passages on the page that you believe are not supported by reliable sources (see WP:RS), then engage in a civil discussion about those additions/reverts on the article's Talk page, from whence a consensus will (one hopes) be achieved. Give it a try. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Conflict of interest prohibits them from directly editing the article. Even though we have no way to confirm that the OP is who they say, for COI purposes we can take it on good faith, which brings that rule into effect. Otherwise BLPs can begin to look more like facebook pages than encyclopedic works. (For example, see: Malcolm T. Elliott, an article which is not a stranger to this board, having been recently gutted to the single sentence supported by the sources.) The real solution for a person who is the subject/victim of an article (or in any way linked to it in some intimate way) is to report the problems on the talk page, and if that doesn't get a reply, or if the problems are so egregious as to violate BLP policy, then bring it here for a wider audience. Seems overly bureaucratic, I know, but there are reasons for this. Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I agree it's not prudent to name victims, children or family members unless they themselves are notable enough to have an article of their own (or else it's just a random name), or unless the name itself is somehow absolutely necessary to define the subject. In most cases, pronouns and general descriptors are enough.Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Vladimir Plahotniuc[edit]

After my intervention on Vladimir Plahotniuc page, the changes made have been canceled by user Gikü, arguing with blatant polishing, removal of negative coverage. After communicating with the admin, by mutual agreement, we came to the conclusion that the situation could be solved here.

In this regard, I present my actions in steps:

1. I have removed information that from the start gives a negative tinge to the page (such accusations should also have some notorious sources). Changes have been made based on Wikipedia policies (NPOV, BLP, MOS, RS)

  • From

Introduction - Vladimir Plahotniuc (born 1 January 1966), is a controversial Moldovan politician, businessman, philanthropist, and accused but not convicted criminal [2] [3]

  • In

Vladimir Plahotniuc (born 1 January 1966), is a Moldovan politician, businessman philanthropist[4]. Who here resorted to policy violation BLP???!!

The current format of the article contains summaries of accusations made against Vladimir Plahotniuc without clear evidence („...He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged…”)

According to politics Biographies of Living People "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our mission to be sensationalist, or to be the main means of spreading problematic affirmations about people's lives."

2. We have drafted the text in line with the NPOV and the MOS, removing the doubling of passages that have actually been returned (and this is not a wiki policy, it is obvious that it has not been analyzed !!!) and obviously come to emphasize negative aspects.

  • From

Described by Forbes magazine as a "shadowy figure," Vlad Plahotniuc was denied the Prime Ministership of the country after Moldova's president declared that Plahotniuc lacked integrity.[5] [6]

  • In (I removed, arguing that the information is found in the Political Activity Chapter) while maintaining the reference source:

On 13 January 2016 Plahotniuc was proposed for the position of Prime Minister of Moldova by the Democratic Party, but his candidacy was rejected by the Moldovan President, Nicolae Timofti. In an official statement, Timofti noted that "Plahotniuc fails to meet the criteria of a candidate for the post of prime minister." He further specified that among the conditions for prime minister, the candidates "integrity should not cause doubt."[7] [8]

3.On the segment ”The theft of the century” we have drafted / removed the duplication of information (the editing of the text, completing with information added by AlberPenfold) which in fact emphasizes the negative tendency:

  • From

Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman [9]. The main mastermind, according to the Kroll report, is a man named Ilan Shor, an Israeli-Moldovan citizen who ran a complex scheme to defraud three banks under his control – Unibank, Sociala and the largest of them all, Banca de Economii.[10] However, a near-miracle has occurred since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, thought to be vital to the poorest nation in Europe. A new government was sworn in and under severe pressure, managed to pull Moldova out of the depths in a very quick period of time. Investigations had been launched, arrested the perpetrators of the massive fraud, including the former prime minister, and secured some important convictions.[11] Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman.[12] However, since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, a new government was sworn in. Under severe pressure, they managed to quickly pull Moldova out of the depths. Investigations, arrests and convictions of the perpetrators of massive fraud were launched, including former Prime Minister Vlad Filat[13] [14] [15], businessman Ilan Shor [16] [17], as well as the controversial businessman Veaceslav Platon.[18] [19] Following investigations, 1 from 14 billion lei was recovered in over two years.[20] Subsequently, Mihail Gofman said that the organizer of the theft of that billion is Veaceslav Platon, a person who knew how to orient himself in the banking system.[21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

  • In

Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman.[26] The main mastermind, according to the Kroll report, is the businessman Ilan Shor, an Israeli-Moldovan citizen who ran a complex scheme to defraud three banks under his control – Unibank, Sociala and the largest of them all, Banca de Economii.[27] However, since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, a new government was sworn in. Under severe pressure, they managed to quickly pull Moldova out of the depths. Investigations, arrests and convictions of the perpetrators of massive fraud were launched, including former Prime Minister Vlad Filat [28] [29] [30], businessman Ilan Shor [31] [32], as well as the controversial businessman Veaceslav Platon.[33] [34] Following investigations, 1 from 14 billion lei was recovered in over two years.[35] Subsequently, Mihail Gofman said that the organizer of the theft of that billion is Veaceslav Platon, a person who knew how to orient himself in the banking system.[36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

4. Exclusion of the subchapter (=== Criticisms of Business Practices ===), which has no place in any form in the Business Chapter, motivating that in Controversies Chapter is a whole paragraph about ”The heft of the century" (Which is the link between business and "the theft of the century"? "The theft of the century" is described in Controversies)

5. I have removed partial information about people's statements that can not be verified by bringing the text to a neutral position (NPOV, VER).

  • From

Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution. [41] [42] [43] While this has not been proven in a court of law, interviews with officials have revealed "in the 1990s he owned a sauna, where he provided businessmen and even diplomats with young prostitutes; Plahotniuc kept a collection of videos to blackmail people and push them to certain deals."[44]. There have been multiple, extensive articles covering these issues by reputable investigative journalists.[45] The New York Times reports that "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged."[46] [47]

  • In

Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution.[48] [49] [50] There have been multiple, extensive articles covering these issues by reputable investigative journalists[51], however none of them had any valid evidence to support all the accusations. The New York Times reports that "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged."[52] [53]

6. I have excluded the information on the case filed by the Italians on the INTERPOL segment. Argumentation: text editing, the link [54] has limited access to money laundering information, which casts doubt on credibility

  • From

Interpol has been monitoring Vladimir Plahotniuc since 2007, and it was reported by Forbes that Interpol believe he is associated with Russia's biggest mafia, Solntsevskaya Bratva. Plahotniuc denies this.[55] The Italian police have also investigated Plahotniuc for money laundering.[56]

  • In

Interpol had a case ID involving Plahotniuc's activities throughout Western Europe since 2007, and it was reported by Forbes that Interpol believe he is associated with Russia's biggest mafia, Solntsevskaya Bratva. Vlad Plahotniuc, disputed the information that his name would be in the Interpol documents [57] [58] [59] [60]

7. I did the editing of the paragraph about the organization of the crime against Gorbunțov, with the annexation of the sources containing his statements. I did not understand why this information was excluded by AlberPenfold and was not seen by the user Gikü. Emphasis was placed on the credibility of the statements of a person in detention, with a criminal biography than on Gorbunțov's statements.

  • From

According to the respected Russian business daily newspaper Kommersant, Plahotniuc has been accused by a hired assassin of being behind the order to kill a Russian banker in London, German Gorbuntsov.[61] This accusation adds evidence to a previously developing story: Plahotniuc had long been accused of being linked to the "organization of the murder attempt on banker German Gorbuntsov."[62] The hired assassin, Vitaliy Proca (sometimes spelled Proka), had been turned over to Romanian authorities in 2013 from Russia for a separate hired assassination after negotiations of an extradition through Interpol.[63] Proca had previously accused Plahotniuc of arranging the assassination, noting, "Plahotniuc's hands are in blood up to his elbows.”[64] Soon after these statements were made, Proca's wife and brother-in-law were imprisoned, and his wife told the press that she was offered a deal by representatives of Plahotniuc to free them if Proca remained silent. [65]

  • In

According to the respected Russian business daily newspaper Kommersant, Plahotniuc has been accused by a hired assassin of being behind the order to kill a Russian banker in London, German Gorbuntsov.[66] The latter rejects the information issued by the killer Vitalie Proca and claims that there are many signs leading to Renato Usatîi.[67]

This accusation adds evidence to a previously developing story: Plahotniuc had long been accused of being linked to the "organization of the murder attempt on banker German Gorbuntsov."[68] The hired assassin, Vitaliy Proca (sometimes spelled Proka), had been turned over to Romanian authorities in 2013 from Russia for a separate hired assassination after negotiations of an extradition through Interpol.[69] Proca had previously accused Plahotniuc of arranging the assassination[70]. Soon after these statements were made, Proca's wife and brother-in-law were imprisoned, and his wife told the press that she was offered a deal by representatives of Plahotniuc to free them if Proca remained silent.[71] Finally, Moldovan media were divided into two camps, and both camps have their own version of the case. In repeating lines, both for CrimeMoldova and for other media sources, German Gorbuntov said that Renato Usatîi is the one who wants his death, and Plahotniuc would have no reason to order his assassination.[72] --Jeremydas (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

labtekwon[edit]

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

NOT objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14A:600:7BA0:F5A5:8259:A7C4:22C9 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Harmeet Dhillon[edit]

Harmeet Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A biased editor is removing crucial information from Harmeet Dhillon's Wikipedia page even though there is nothing controversial about the edits. Specifically:

|language=en}}</ref> A prominent conservative blog named Powerline Blog called Dhillon "dangerous" and argued that her appointment to the U.S. Department of Justice would be "a shocking betrayal of conservative values." [1] Dhillon has a history of suing individuals to suppress their freedom of speech: for example, she has filed a frivolous lawsuit against an anonymous blogger simply because he used her photo in a blog post. Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief against Dhillon, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Dhillon was criticized for her self-serving and meritless lawsuit: "the plaintiff in this case should have known better than to waste the court’s time on such an outrageous claim."[2] The federal judge found Dhillon's claims to be "speculative and conclusory" and dismissed Dhillon's lawsuit without even granting oral argument. [3]

A. The editor is not allowing the introduction of basic information about the ruling of a federal judge. B. The editor is arguing that "Powerline Blog" is a primary source, even though it isn't. C. Electronic Freedom Foundation is a bipartisan, widely respected organization.

References

  1. ^ "A Dangerous Candidate for the Top DOJ Civil Rights Job". Powerline Blog. Retrieved 2018-07-16.
  2. ^ "Fair Use Triumphs in the Munger Games". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2018-07-16.
  3. ^ "Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  • Probably because 1) we don't use blogs as sources for contentious material about living persons, 2) a brief filed by the EFF is a primary source, which we also don't use for contentious material about living persons, and 3) the entire passage is written like a Facebook rant from your aunt. GMGtalk 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this "impartial" and condescending input. Wikipedia cites blogs all the time: technically, even some news agencies are basically blogs (for example, Gizmodo's publications). Also, are you arguing that a federal judge's opinion is not worth the citation? Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all of GMG's points. BLPs require better sources. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I too agree with GMG. As a Californian who pays close attention to politics, I am quite familiar with her and disagree with her about almost everything. But this biography must comply with BLP policy, and this content in its current form does not comply. The notion that Powerline is an acceptable source for citing contentious material in a BLP is ludicrous. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's nice to see political bias infecting this discussion. Jezebel isn't a blog, but PowerLine is? Powerline is not an acceptable source, but Jezebel is? Removing a federal ruling from the page because it doesn't suit the discussion? OK then. Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on Jezebel or Powerline, since I don't know much about either of them. But there's a Wikipedia policy that warns against the use of primary sources, and explicitly forbids the use of court records to make claims about living persons. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. You relied on a court record and documents from a group that filed a brief opposing her for most of the text you attempted to add. Those are not acceptable sources for content making controversial claims about a living person. If the issue was so minor that no reliable independent sources reported on it, then it shouldn't be in her biography. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Marc restellini[edit]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Restellini

Is not a biography is an hagiographic tribute full of blind love,

All the related information needs to be updated and changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.169.235.159 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

hmm..is it Love..or money? Created by a SPA who has not edited since, and added to by a series of IPs. Removed some of the worst promotional peacockery, and updated some of the information. Not sure how genuinely notable he actually is though; too much information about his purported unique techniques are credited only to his own website, and a few of the news articles appear based on interviews. Hard to tell as I do not speak French, and google translate has its limits. Curdle (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, after a bit of a search, there is enough out there that he is probably notable, (found several better articles in French, and in English as well) which makes deciding what to do about this article kind of awkward, as there are also quite a few problems with it. A large chunk looks to be direct copypaste from the subjects website, which has been in the article since it was first created.
There also seem to be competing interests at work; the subject has been working on what is said to be a definitive catalogue of the artist Modigliani's paintings. Some Ips are promoting the work, others appear to be trying to cast doubts on it. Apparently there was a big scandal a couple of years ago regarding fakes and faked catalogues of Modigliani's work, and various collectors are now afraid for the value of their investments. There also possible financial skulduggery linked to the collapse of museums etc.(unsure how much of this is genuine, coatracking or written by people attempting to discredit the subjects reliability). I dont really know enough about the art world to feel confident wading through it all, and unsure how much is even salvagable due to the massive copyvio. Curdle (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nikolaos Koklonis[edit]

Nikolaos Koklonis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like its been created and edited by the person whom the artcle is about if one looks at the talk page it can be seen that a username related to the user has made significant changes. The article is self promotion.

The article has been deleted by JzG as promotional. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ro Khanna[edit]

More eyes are needed at Ro Khanna, where Asaturn is editing to portray this member of Congress as a hypocrite because he accepts entirely legal campaign contributions from Silicon Valley executives. Pay special attention to the edit summaries, the talk page remarks where they speculate that I am a Khanna employee, and comments on my talk page, all of which make it obvious that this editor has an axe to grind. The editor is ignoring my concerns so it would be great if other folks can get involved. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This editor posted a Google Docs screed on the talk page that calls Khanna a "neoliberal warmongering fracking pro-TPP pawn". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Asaturn, it's really quite simple. If reliable sources say "he takes money only from individuals", then that's what we report. If you want to take issue with those facts, you need to file your complaint with the newspapers/outlets that reported it. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the one taking issue with facts. Cullen added unnecessary editorials to my additions in an attempt to downplay the facts of where Ro Khanna's individual (and 100% legal) contributions come from. The article for Ro Khanna reads like a puff piece. Read the talk page - I'm not the first person to say so. The article paints him as anti-PAC when (1) he takes PAC money and runs his own PAC in violation of campaign finance law, and (2) his regular contributions, while totally legal, are 94% from millionaires outside of his own district. If pointing this out violates the rules of Wikipedia, then the puff piece content painting him as anti-PAC and a reformer for campaign finance regulations need to be removed, as you are allowing readers to see one side of Ro Khanna without seeing the other, more hypocritical side. Asaturn (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that say Khanna "takes PAC money and runs his own PAC in violation of campaign finance law"? If not, you can't say it on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Is the FEC a reliable source enough for you?[1] Note the person who filed the paperwork to start the PAC is named Ash Chopra. This person is listed as a former Goldman Sach's employee and Ro Khanna's 2014 campaign finance chair / host committee chair.[2]
You're quite simply wrong on the facts. That FEC document clearly shows the formation of a candidate committee, not a Political Action Committee. See where the box is checked under "Type of Committee"? That's right, the section entitled "Candidate Committee." Where you claim the committee treasurer formerly worked is both unsourced and entirely irrelevant unless commented upon by a reliable secondary source. You clearly have an ax to grind here, you're either misinformed or willfully ignorant of the facts, and worse, you're weaponizing that ignorance in an effort to falsely depict a living person in blatant violation of several policies. I suggest that you step back and disengage yourself from this article before you're topic-banned or worse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong on "the facts," or your understanding of how the world works? This is nuts. The FEC document shows the formation of a candidate committee... which is a type of PAC. Wikipedia is a bad place for discussion when people are living in an alternate universe, as seen here. I'll step away and grab some popcorn while... 5? people randomly decide to block the public's attempt at showing Ro Khanna still accepts PAC money. Ash Chopra's LinkedIn lists him as a former Goldman Sachs employee (2000-2004) and the link I provided to that "invite" is Ro Khanna's own campaign website (hosted by NGPVan, a company anyone outside of Wikipedia would know as one of the top two providers for campaign websites in the USA). http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashuchopra BUT I WAS NEVER CLAIMING THIS IN THE ARTICLE SO WHO CARES? Are you going to now claim LinkedIn doesn't fit into Rule #5382989537 of Wikipedia nerds? Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You simply have no understanding of either campaign law or of Wikipedia policy. A candidate committee is not a "type of PAC." It is certainly a political fundraising committee, but it is emphatically not a "PAC." Please read our handy article on political action committees to be better informed about the law. And you are correct to guess that LinkedIn is *not* a reliable secondary source. Do you know how many LinkedIn pages are total bullshit? Calling other editors "Wikipedia nerds" for suggesting that you need to follow policies is not likely to result in a happy ending for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
As for the Google Docs link, I didn't write it. It cites the FCC, OpenSecrets, Daily Kos, and numerous other reputable publications. I never said Ro Khanna was any of those things. Once again, Cullen is editorializing in an attempt to paint the facts I shared as biased or somehow "attacking" Ro Khanna. Asaturn (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You may not have written it, Asaturn but you and only you posted that screed calling this person a "neoliberal warmongering fracking pro-TPP pawn", and by claiming that this garbage is a reliable source, you committed a BLP violation which you have not yet rescinded. You clearly do not understand either BLP policy or reliable source guidelines. You cannot edit articles like this unless and until you are scrupulous in complying with the applicable policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong again. Your words, not mine. Please stop trying to characterize me as some sort of Ro Khanna hater. The document itself is full of links to government campaign data and reputable sites like OpenSecrets. The comments in the document itself are not my words. This game you're playing is getting old, and I have no idea why you're so obsessed. Asaturn (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, for whatever it's worth, the edits in question have nothing to do with the google doc you keep bringing up. I only brought that up when challenged for additional sources in side conversations. I have never used that document as a citation itself. The question at hand is whether I added correctly cited facts. I did: I linked to OpenSecrets' analysis of the FEC data for Ro Khanna's campaign. I simply shared the fact that the majority of his campaign funds came from outside of his district - an important distinction to make. Other editors have added the fact that Ro Khanna receives the majority of his funding from CEOs in tech and other industries. Is sharing this biased or pushing a POV? The issue here is that editors of this page are attempting to push the agenda of the Ro Khanna campaign and paint him as a reformer. It is the duty of this encyclopedia to contain relevant and important information. The facts of where Ro Khanna gets his campaign funding are not only important, but very relevant when you consider the fact that he is sold as a campaign finance reformer. As I said elsewhere, if this needs to be moved to a new section on his article, I'm happy to do that. But do not misrepresent my edits in an attempt to push your own agenda here. Asaturn (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I invite and welcome any uninvolved editors and adminstrators to scrutinize this situation to independently decide who is pushing an agenda here. I welcome their conclusions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I invite and welcome anyone who has spent fewer than 24 hours in the last 2 days on Wikipedia to independently look at what Cullen is claiming I said vs. what was actually edited on the Ro Khanna article. I'm not the one pushing an agenda here. Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have given Asaturn the DS alert for BLPs. Stating (as was done above) that a named politician has violated campaign finance laws without RS support is clearly a BLP issue. EdChem (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "PAC Formation for "Californians for Innovation"" (PDF). FEC.
  2. ^ "South Asian Leaders Event Invite". Ro Khanna for Congress. Retrieved 13 January 2019.
I have never said that in the article. That was Cullen's words, not mine, based on his interpretation of a list of sources I had previously shared. Nowhere in the article did I claim laws were violated. This is ridiculous and people are not understanding the situation. Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

David Olshanetsky[edit]

David Olshanetsky incorrect information unreliable sources too obscure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.95.206 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you specify what is incorrect, so it can be fixed?--Auric talk 17:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Rachel Riley[edit]

Rachel Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has seen an influx of new editors with rather strong views. The subject has recently spoke out against antisemitism, and subsequently George Galloway criticized her and Riley responded. It seems that Galloway (and others in the same circle) are actively addressing the Wikipedia page of Riley in social media - Galloway himself retweeting posts on Riley's Wikipedia entry, and a search on twitter for Riley+Wikipedia coming up with some alarming results. The page has seen edits such as this to her nationality (and occupation) and this smear, as well as strong POV assertions, Jew (and half-Jew) labelling, etc. Additional eyes appreciated. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You want page protection not blp. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Darren Sproles[edit]

Darren Sproles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio has been messed with, clearly false into input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.249.55 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple vandalism; no action needed here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Priyanandanan[edit]

Person is the target of targeted online/offline harassment (news). Article Priyanandanan has received abusive edits from multiple IPs. See Special:Diff/878015054/878333717. I have protected the article on mlwiki, requesting the same here. -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Judith P. Hallett[edit]

The re-addition of the “Controversies” section to the entry on Judith P. Hallett seems to me to violate some of the BLP policies- specifically, it is poorly sourced, it seems to be an attempt at continuing ongoing disputes, and it’s not terribly relevant to the reasons for her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DidymusHirsch (talkcontribs) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and it does violate BLP policies; this matter was settled on the BLP noticeboard at this time last year when the material was first added, and after the BLP noticeboard discussion, the material was removed. The archived discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Judith_Hallett
The re-addition is of the same material, at exactly the same time of year, added by an anonymous editor, suggests it is the same editor using a different IP address. It's unrealistic to consider this good faith editing and should be considered page vandalism. Its removal is clearly the correct response. If it reappears is there something more that we can do? Claire 75 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
that link shows a previous consensus to remove the content, just remove it on sight, keep your eye on it, ten months has passed since it was last added so it's not at a level really requiring page protection yet imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there some way of putting this on an automated watchlist that will e.g., flag anonymous changes? Frankly I don't have time to continually watch the page for vandalism; it's a very poor use of any editor's time? Claire 75 (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You could ask at page protection. wp:rfpp Govindaharihari (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Pending changes might be suitable here. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles Glasser[edit]

Hi everyone, it's Charles! I'm looking for help with my page. Some rando set it up, there was some discussion out there about it being "paid for" (NOT!) but the point is the page is really incomplete and doesn't give a full picture. Of course, I know it's not a sales brochure, but we have the same interest: accurate and complete information for the public. Is there a Wiki editor who is willing to help? I can provide solid, verifiable info and sources for what's missing. Charles Glasser

www.charlesglasser.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C301:179:D0B0:93DA:3BD7:EAF5 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Glasser, and welcome. Just a brief note of caution that it can be tough to be in close contact with your Wikipedia page, as we follow policies that might not always lead to your preferred page. That being said, I swung through quickly and it looks like much of it is cited to reliable sources, which is good! While we appreciate your input, and can cite to you for some small, noncontroversial matters, any major information should come from reliable third parties. Best of luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind response, Dumuzid. I wouldn't ask you to cite to myself, that just doesn't seem clean. I have litigated some important free speech cases that are missing and can provide court papers (about as reliable third party as it gets!) There are also some television clips which speak for themselves, too. I can provide links for those. There are several photos of me in the public domain: what's the best way to get them included? I want to do everything by the book, of course. Can I send you a file of the changes and links? Thanks so much for your help. Charles Glasser 2601:8C:C301:179:D0B0:93DA:3BD7:EAF5 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó[edit]

Juan Guaidó never took part in the 2018 presidential elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Venezuelan_presidential_election — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngmarJGauger (talkcontribs) 20:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Intent of BLPPRIMARY[edit]

Hi, simple question. So, there's a dispute over this edit. The edit claims that a local government Ethics Board investigation was suspended due to a law enforcement investigation. This claim is directly supported by the source. The source is a public statement made by a government official (Niquelle Allen, Director of the Office of Open Government), as found in a public record of an Ethics Board meeting. This is a relevant, uncontentious factual update to information already discussed in the article. However, it is being blocked on the basis of BLPPRIMARY, which says: "Do not use ... public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I find it hard to believe that this kind of uncontentious edit cannot be made simply because it was found in a public record, but that is what the text seems to suggest. What is the actual intent of this clause, and does it really apply in this situation?  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • This is similar to the verdicts question we discussed on the BLP talk page a few weeks ago. It is a question of WP:UNDUE: if there is not coverage in reliable secondary sources, there is a very valid question as to whether or not we should be covering it at all. If there is coverage in these sources and they appear to err (which can be common in reporting on this type of thing) quoting the primary source to supplement the secondary source should be fine. The intent is not to have people digging around in court records to find dirt on people and also to enforce NPOV/UNDUE in BLPs by requiring secondary coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Steven Gundry[edit]

The text of the reception section of this article currently reads:

T. Colin Campbell, a biochemist and advocate for plant-based diets, noted that Gundry's 2017 book The Plant Paradox contained numerous poorly supported scientific claims and that it did not make a "convincing argument that lectins as a class are hazardous." Robert H. Eckel, an endocrinologist and past president of the American Heart Association, stated that Gundry's diet advice was "against every dietary recommendation represented by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Associationand so on" and that it was not possible to draw any conclusions from Gundry's own research on the effects of lectin-free diets due to the absence of any control patients. Writing in New Scientist, the food writer and chef Anthony Warner noted that Gundry's theories "are not supported by mainstream nutritional science" and that evidence of the benefits of high-lectin containing diets "is so overwhelming as to render Gundry’s arguments laughable". Gundry sells supplements, including some costing $80 per month, that claim to protect people from the supposedly damaging effect of lectins.] Today's Dietician noted that "Although the research on lectin ... is still emerging, preliminary studies have revealed potential health benefits of lectin consumption and minute evidence of harm."

I believe having a "reception" section in the article of a person is dubious from a BLP perspective to begin with (would be better reserved for his book than the article about him) but the context in when the sentence "Gundry sells supplements, including some costing $80 per month, that claim to protect people from the supposedly damaging effect of lectins" appears I find particularly egregious as it seems to heavily imply that Gundry is inventing panic to sell supplements. relevant discussion on talk page . - Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Steven_Gundry#Profiteering_accusations for prior discussion between myself and Scarpy, where there are citations supporting the information about supplements. There are 5 reliable sources who thought it worthy of mentioning, 4 of which mention the cost. Including that information does not "heavily imply that Gundry is inventing panic to sell supplements" and it would be inappropriate if it did, despite the fact that the sources do actually imply it. The section would be better in the author section as it is only applicable to his writing and not his time as a heart surgeon, it used to be like that but IIRC it was moved in an attempt to make the article more neutral. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Chip St. Clair[edit]

Chip St. Clair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entire article reads like a BLP nightmare - many contentious claims all based on primary sources with no specific claims supported by inline citations. The article was created by a single-purpose account that has been used solely to promote St. Clair and his book over several years. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree. And even trying a search on his name brings up nothing in the news and no immediate usable RSes in the first several pages of a regular Google search. Sending it off to AFD. (And fully agree that the creator, @Chants75:, likely has COI with the subject, if not the subject themselves. --Masem (t) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Also tagged the book article The Butterfly Garden for the same reasons. --Masem (t) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Fishman[edit]

Hi Friends,

This page is about me and my career, and was flagged for "multiple issues" a few years ago. Since then, I have tried to address these with careful edits using wiki suggested standards, but the "multiple issues" box has remained at the top of the page. I sense that it has not been reviewed since these issues were first cited, and would appreciate any help in getting the updated content approved. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisteriatree (talkcontribs) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Graham Buffett[edit]

My edit was removed for being a 'promotional paragraph', however the cited article in question is an important story regarding the use of personal wealth in the middle of the contemporary border debate. The source that is under question, The Phoenix New Times, is a widely circulated free weekly publication in the greater Phoenix area and has a long record of breaking important local and regional news. The Phoenix New Times saw fit to publish this article in two parts on the cover for two weeks in a row. The article in question can be found here:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/howard-buffetts-warren-buffet-son-border-war-cochise-county-11103225

The diff can be found below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Graham_Buffett&curid=3489862&diff=878728708&oldid=878634617

Switters765 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see how Part two of this incredible story is due out later this week! is promotional, I can't help you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


That one sentence was removed. No need to get snippy. I'm new to this. I have no connection to the periodical or author, just think it's an important story.Switters765 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is why the paragraph was removed; it looks like you've restored the rest of the content. I'm not sure what other concerns you have that require this noticeboard's attention. You should discuss any editorial concerns (such as if someone objects to including this material at all) on Talk:Howard Graham Buffett. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry - I initially posted this in a new section.
Some initially promotional content was added to the Media section of Howard Graham Buffett including the phrase 'Part two of this incredible story is due out later this week!'. I reverted completely and my reversion has been reverted but that offending phrase removed. [version of BLP prior to my revert, linking to Media section]
Rather than revert again - I don't want to get into an edit war - I have modified the language to reflect the uncertainty express by the letter of the report, although it strongly implied impropriety. I suspect this is still not suitable under WP:BLP and I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD, but would rather an independent editor assessed this rather than have me engage in an apparent edit war with a relatively inexperienced editor. I'm not particularly happy with my modified description that the report implied rather than firmly alleged certain behaviors of Buffett, but I don't think it's worth the time to pore over its wording if the source isn't WP:RS anyway.
From the Phoenix New Times article, it appears to be a weekly tabloid, but this may reflect only the paper format used in the presses, not necessarily implying 'tabloid journalism' which WP:BLP rules summarised in the banner above the Edit box warn about. I didn't find a discussion of Phoenix New Times (other than its blogs section) in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, otherwise I'd have removed it again citing that decision.
I would welcome an independent editor's input on this, or a suggestion that I take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard Dynamicimanyd (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (journalist)[edit]

Midlandino (talk · contribs) has recently added unusually large criticism sections to our article on Jesse Brown and the associated podcast Canadaland, accusing Brown of falsifying stories and many other associated problems. The sourcing used is fairly low-quality, and includes several allegations sourced to Twitter or other self-published sources. I've trimmed some of the worst BLP offenses from Brown's article, but more persist in the Canadaland article and both need to be examined to ensure the welter of op-ed criticisms present are weighted appropriately and presented in accordance with WP:BLPSTYLE. Any help appreciated. —0xf8e8 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Red Shirts (United States)[edit]

Red Shirts (United States), an article about a 19th century neo-confederate organization, was edited to state it was "revived" (and other changes) [73] and then edited again to add a wikilink to a BLP as the leader. [74] No sources provided in these edits. I have reverted, but out of an abundance of caution would appreciate a more experienced editor reviewing as I'm not sure if this is a "BLP issue" or not. Thank you. Levivich? ! 06:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to soften the presentation of an historic racist organization and I don't see a BLP dimension. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is a BLP issue. If you name a BLP (in this one born in 1951) as the present day leader of an organization (any organization, let along one like this) - you need a proper source.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The living person was inserted erroneously into the article by the IP. The removal of the living person was appropriate but means that the article no longer has a BLP dimension. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we include any mention Tulsi Gabbard's connections to Chris Butler in her entry?[edit]

...and, if we mention Butler, how much discussion is appropriate? I proposed a one sentence mention in this edit. But editors have disputed that any mention of Butler is WP:DUE.

Background: Butler's group is an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement. Gabbard's parents are both high profile followers, and Gabbard herself has described him as an important spiritual leader who shaped her Hindu beliefs. Butler's group has been accused of cult-like activities and there has been speculation that his views and political influence shaped her early career.

Coverage: Gabbard's only been a national figure for a short time, but the Hawaiian press has covered this throughout her career. A story was picked up by the Huffington Post in 2015, and the Butler relationship was the central focus in a 2017 profile for the New Yorker. It has not been the major focus of coverage since she announced her campaign, but it has been mentioned on Vox.com, Washington Monthly, and the Honolulu Civil Beat in the last few days. Nblund talk 16:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard but this looks undue to me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
To clarify: do you mean any mention of Butler at all is undue? I'm not proposing that we have a whole section calling her a cultist - but the article already details far less noteworthy aspects of her religious views. Nblund talk 17:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sort of on the fence here--my gut is to side with Simonm223, and say it's just undue. But there is some pickup in some major RSes and so maybe a single sentence within the discussion of her religion would make sense. Sorry I am not much help today! Dumuzid (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It's weasel-wording. "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." The implication is as you say that Butler's views and political shaped Gabbard's early career. I think it is best to wait and see if the cable networks and quality newspapers run with the story when we will be able to fairly present it. I don't think the role of the article is to bring to public attention information that most people would not find out about through these sources. TFD (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: As it stands I'd say talking about her religious background is undue except wherein there is something notable about it that is reported in reliable sources and shown to have lasting significance. Her having a vague connection to a religious leader who in turn has ties to a sect of Hinduism with a history of being aggressively missionary and was subsequently labelled a cult in North America is... not... independently notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
How are we assessing notability here, exactly if not by looking at the reliable sources have covered it in depth? The article already discusses her religious views in some detail: we know that she's a Hindu who follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but she's a westerner who has never been to India. That's extremely atypical outside of the Hare Krishna movement. I think the implicit concern is that it is inherently scandalous to say she was involved with a new age religious movement, but I don't think that's actually the case. Lots of elected politicians have somewhat unusual religious backgrounds. It's also not really a policy-based reason to refrain from mentioning a useful piece of biographical context. Nblund talk 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)